Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8061 ANTONIO BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRYN MAWR, Officer; CORPORAL UNDERWOOD; B. CATON, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cv-03364-GLR) Submitted: March 17, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8061 ANTONIO BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRYN MAWR, Officer; CORPORAL UNDERWOOD; B. CATON, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cv-03364-GLR) Submitted: March 17, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8061
ANTONIO BRADLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRYN MAWR, Officer; CORPORAL
UNDERWOOD; B. CATON, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-03364-GLR)
Submitted: March 17, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Bradley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Bradley appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without
prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Bradley v. Salisbury Police Dep’t, No.
1:13-cv-03364-GLR (D. Md. Dec. 13, 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