Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6067 RODERICK JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DENISE MORGAN, Warden; S. HARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00078-CCB) Submitted: April 8, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6067 RODERICK JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DENISE MORGAN, Warden; S. HARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00078-CCB) Submitted: April 8, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6067
RODERICK JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENISE MORGAN, Warden; S. HARE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00078-CCB)
Submitted: April 8, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Johnson 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. Johnson v. Morgan,
No. 1:18-cv-00078-CCB (D. Md. filed Nov. 13, 2018 & entered Nov. 14, 2018). 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