Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6920 MATTHEW DETZLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KIM COX, Treatment Program Supervisor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00552-GBL-TCB) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Det
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6920 MATTHEW DETZLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KIM COX, Treatment Program Supervisor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00552-GBL-TCB) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Detz..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6920
MATTHEW DETZLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIM COX, Treatment Program Supervisor,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00552-GBL-TCB)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Detzler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Detzler appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Detzler v. Cox, No.
1:10-cv-00552-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. June 11, 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