Filed: Jun. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6276 JAY TIMOTHY LURZ, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ROBERT M. FRIEND, Lieutenant; AL DAVIS, Hearing Officer; T. PERRY, Now: Lieutenant Thomas K. Perry; STEVEN A. WILSON, Ofc., CO II; GARY A. ROBERTSON, Ofc., CO II; PUFFENBARGER, Ofc., CO II, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-0
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6276 JAY TIMOTHY LURZ, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ROBERT M. FRIEND, Lieutenant; AL DAVIS, Hearing Officer; T. PERRY, Now: Lieutenant Thomas K. Perry; STEVEN A. WILSON, Ofc., CO II; GARY A. ROBERTSON, Ofc., CO II; PUFFENBARGER, Ofc., CO II, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-02..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6276
JAY TIMOTHY LURZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ROBERT M. FRIEND, Lieutenant; AL
DAVIS, Hearing Officer; T. PERRY, Now: Lieutenant Thomas K.
Perry; STEVEN A. WILSON, Ofc., CO II; GARY A. ROBERTSON,
Ofc., CO II; PUFFENBARGER, Ofc., CO II,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02664-PJM)
Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay Timothy Lurz, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane
Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jay Timothy Lurz appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on 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. See Lurz v. Galley, No. 1:09-cv-02664-PJM (D. Md. Feb.
10, 2011). 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