Filed: Apr. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6267 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAUL DEWOLFE, Director of Public Defender, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03379-RWT) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6267 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAUL DEWOLFE, Director of Public Defender, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03379-RWT) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson F..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6267 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAUL DEWOLFE, Director of Public Defender, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03379-RWT) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Furtado v. DeWolfe, No. 8:07-cv-03379-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2008). 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 -
