Filed: Feb. 09, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7719 KEVIN D. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AUTHUR SMITH, Department of Police; S. L. SCHULTZ, #2552; G. BRANDT, #1537; KNODE, Ofc.; DIETZ, Ofc.; CINDY MESSER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02717-RDB) Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7719 KEVIN D. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AUTHUR SMITH, Department of Police; S. L. SCHULTZ, #2552; G. BRANDT, #1537; KNODE, Ofc.; DIETZ, Ofc.; CINDY MESSER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02717-RDB) Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7719 KEVIN D. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AUTHUR SMITH, Department of Police; S. L. SCHULTZ, #2552; G. BRANDT, #1537; KNODE, Ofc.; DIETZ, Ofc.; CINDY MESSER SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02717-RDB) Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin D. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Douglas Peter, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin D. Walker appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Walker v. Smith, No. 1:07-cv-02717- RDB (D. Md. Aug. 19, 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
