Filed: Apr. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7451 DEWIGHT BYRD, a/k/a Charles W. Reed, III, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner of Correction; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary of DPSCS; JOHN ROWLEY, Warden; D. NORTHCRAFT, Chief of Security; WERNER, Lieutenant, In their Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7451 DEWIGHT BYRD, a/k/a Charles W. Reed, III, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner of Correction; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary of DPSCS; JOHN ROWLEY, Warden; D. NORTHCRAFT, Chief of Security; WERNER, Lieutenant, In their Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7451
DEWIGHT BYRD, a/k/a Charles W. Reed, III,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner of Correction; GARY MAYNARD,
Secretary of DPSCS; JOHN ROWLEY, Warden; D. NORTHCRAFT,
Chief of Security; WERNER, Lieutenant, In their Individual
and Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02368-CCB)
Submitted: April 12, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dewight Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dewight Byrd appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Byrd’s 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. Byrd v. Stouffer, No.
1:08-cv-02368-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2010). We also deny Byrd’s
motion to appoint counsel. 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