Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6692 GLENN BROOKS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRIS FUNK; MATTHEW RYCKMAN; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00675-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6692 GLENN BROOKS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRIS FUNK; MATTHEW RYCKMAN; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00675-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6692 GLENN BROOKS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRIS FUNK; MATTHEW RYCKMAN; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00675-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glenn Brooks appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brooks v. Funk, 1:13-00675-WDQ (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013; Apr. 10, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
