Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7472 ALEXANDER JIGGETTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; SHARON BIGGINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-02569-JFM) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7472 ALEXANDER JIGGETTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; SHARON BIGGINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-02569-JFM) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7472
ALEXANDER JIGGETTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; SHARON BIGGINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-02569-JFM)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Jiggetts appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Jiggetts v. Maryland, No. 1:15-cv-02569-JFM (D. Md.
filed Sept. 10, 2015 & entered Sept. 11, 2015). 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