Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Griffiths v. Hughes, 10-6555 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-6555 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6555 CHESTER C. GRIFFITHS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. HUGHES, United States Marshal, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01657-JFM) Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pr
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-6555


CHESTER C. GRIFFITHS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

MR. HUGHES, United States Marshal,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01657-JFM)


Submitted:   June 24, 2010                    Decided:   July 1, 2010


Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

             Chester   C.    Griffiths    appeals    the   district   court’s

order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
403 U.S. 388
  (1971).    We   have   reviewed   the    record   and    find   no

reversible error.      Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.        Griffiths v. Hughes, No. 1:09-cv-01657-

JFM (D. Md. Mar. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer