Filed: Apr. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7574 EUGENE NESBITT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL G. BERG, Defendant - Appellee, PARRIS N. GLENDENING; MARTIN O’MALLEY; EDWARD T. NORRIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01605-WMN) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7574 EUGENE NESBITT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL G. BERG, Defendant - Appellee, PARRIS N. GLENDENING; MARTIN O’MALLEY; EDWARD T. NORRIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01605-WMN) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7574 EUGENE NESBITT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL G. BERG, Defendant - Appellee, PARRIS N. GLENDENING; MARTIN O’MALLEY; EDWARD T. NORRIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01605-WMN) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Nesbitt, Jr. 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. Nesbitt v. Berg, No. 1:06-cv-01605-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006). 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 -
