Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7497 CLIFTON V. GRAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK SIZER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 1046-AMD) Submitted: January 14, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton V. Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph A.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7497 CLIFTON V. GRAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK SIZER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 1046-AMD) Submitted: January 14, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton V. Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph A. C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7497 CLIFTON V. GRAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK SIZER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 1046-AMD) Submitted: January 14, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton V. Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph A. Curran, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton V. Graves appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Graves v. Sizer, No. CA-04-1046-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 24, 2004). 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 -
