Filed: Aug. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6010 PAUL GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; CENTRAL BOOKINGS INTAKE FACILITY; BALTIMORE CITY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-04-3713-CCB) Submitted: August 5, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6010 PAUL GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; CENTRAL BOOKINGS INTAKE FACILITY; BALTIMORE CITY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-04-3713-CCB) Submitted: August 5, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6010 PAUL GRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; CENTRAL BOOKINGS INTAKE FACILITY; BALTIMORE CITY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-04-3713-CCB) Submitted: August 5, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Graham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Graham v. Maryland, No. CA-04-3713-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 7, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
