Filed: Aug. 27, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6827 FRANK M. NEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE SEACRIST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-0891-RDB) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6827 FRANK M. NEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE SEACRIST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-0891-RDB) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6827 FRANK M. NEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE SEACRIST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-0891-RDB) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank M. Neff appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Neff v. Seacrist, No. 1:08-cv-0891-RDB (D. Md. April 14, 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
