Filed: Dec. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7599 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN GARDNER; TERESA WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-953-AMD) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7599 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN GARDNER; TERESA WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-953-AMD) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7599 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN GARDNER; TERESA WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-953-AMD) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scotland E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Scotland E. Williams 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 Williams v. Gardner, No. CA-04-953-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 20, 2005). 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 -
