Filed: Feb. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7634 ROBERT A. REED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden of MCH-X Prison; SHARALE ADAMS, Correctional Officer II; TRENT MILES, Sergeant; ANNA MADDOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-726-PJM) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7634 ROBERT A. REED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden of MCH-X Prison; SHARALE ADAMS, Correctional Officer II; TRENT MILES, Sergeant; ANNA MADDOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-726-PJM) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7634 ROBERT A. REED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden of MCH-X Prison; SHARALE ADAMS, Correctional Officer II; TRENT MILES, Sergeant; ANNA MADDOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-726-PJM) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert A. Reed appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reed v. Peguese, No. CA- 03-726-PJM (D. Md. filed Sept. 26, 2003 & entered Sept. 30, 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 -
