Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6070 TYRELL DAVRON ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHARON NUTTER, Fiscal Account Clerk Supervisor; DIVISION OF CORRECTION; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner of Correction; JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden of MCI-H & Staff; INMATE AFFAIRS UNIT; INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-2497-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6070 TYRELL DAVRON ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHARON NUTTER, Fiscal Account Clerk Supervisor; DIVISION OF CORRECTION; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner of Correction; JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden of MCI-H & Staff; INMATE AFFAIRS UNIT; INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-2497-1..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6070 TYRELL DAVRON ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHARON NUTTER, Fiscal Account Clerk Supervisor; DIVISION OF CORRECTION; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner of Correction; JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden of MCI-H & Staff; INMATE AFFAIRS UNIT; INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-2497-1-AMD) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrell Davron Anderson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tyrell Davron Anderson 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. Nutter, No. CA-04-2497-1-AMD (D. Md. filed Dec. 21, 2004 & entered Dec. 22, 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 -