Filed: Jul. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6335 KENNETH HINTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES W. RUDASILL, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-01460-AW) Submitted: July 7, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. James W. Rud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6335 KENNETH HINTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES W. RUDASILL, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-01460-AW) Submitted: July 7, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. James W. Ruda..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6335 KENNETH HINTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JAMES W. RUDASILL, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-01460-AW) Submitted: July 7, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. James W. Rudasill, Jr., Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Hinton appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hinton v. Rudasill, No. 8:08-cv- 01460-AW (D. Md. filed Feb. 25, 2010; entered Feb. 26, 2010). 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
