Filed: Jul. 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6540 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USA; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective; JOHN KELLY, Officer; THOMAS J. LOVE, Special Agent; SHAWN GARRITY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 319) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6540 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USA; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective; JOHN KELLY, Officer; THOMAS J. LOVE, Special Agent; SHAWN GARRITY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 319) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6540 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USA; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective; JOHN KELLY, Officer; THOMAS J. LOVE, Special Agent; SHAWN GARRITY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 319) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Wardrick, No. CA-03-319 (D. Md. Feb. 11, 2003). 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
