Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6018 DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary; CAPTAIN NEDER; STEVEN ROACH; JEFF NIMES; DAVID LANCASTER, Lieutenant; STEVE ZOLLNER; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 02-3647-8-RDB) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Befo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6018 DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary; CAPTAIN NEDER; STEVEN ROACH; JEFF NIMES; DAVID LANCASTER, Lieutenant; STEVE ZOLLNER; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 02-3647-8-RDB) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Befor..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6018 DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary; CAPTAIN NEDER; STEVEN ROACH; JEFF NIMES; DAVID LANCASTER, Lieutenant; STEVE ZOLLNER; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 02-3647-8-RDB) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Demetric Gray Pearson 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 Pearson v. Simms, No. CA-02-3647-8-RDB (D. Md. filed Dec. 11, 2003 & entered Dec. 12, 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 -