Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7829 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSHUA L. JARRELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 3570) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Guy Arnold, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7829 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSHUA L. JARRELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 3570) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Guy Arnold, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7829 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSHUA L. JARRELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 3570) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Guy Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Linda S. Woolf, Kristen Nichole Nesbitt, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & GRAY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Guy Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Arnold v. Jarrell, No. CA-01-3570 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
