Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7993 CRAIG BURRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLERK, BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03006-RDB) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7993 CRAIG BURRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLERK, BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03006-RDB) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7993
CRAIG BURRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLERK, BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03006-RDB)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Burris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Burris appeals the district court’s order dismissing
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. Burris v. Clerk,
Balt. Cty. Cir. Ct., No. 1:15-cv-03006-RDB (D. Md. Dec. 7,
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