Filed: Jun. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7689 PHILLIP MARK SHAFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTINE ELLIS, Individually & Officially; DANA MAYLON, Ethics Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00482-PJM) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7689 PHILLIP MARK SHAFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTINE ELLIS, Individually & Officially; DANA MAYLON, Ethics Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00482-PJM) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7689
PHILLIP MARK SHAFER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTINE ELLIS, Individually & Officially; DANA MAYLON,
Ethics Commissioner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00482-PJM)
Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Mark Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Mark Shafer appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Shafer v. Ellis, No. 8:08-cv-00482-PJM (D. Md.
Feb. 29, 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