Filed: Aug. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6115 CHAUNCEY BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL OF E.C.I., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Baltimore, at Maryland. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00105-JKB) Submitted: July 20, 2020 Decided: August 14, 2020 Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6115 CHAUNCEY BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL OF E.C.I., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Baltimore, at Maryland. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00105-JKB) Submitted: July 20, 2020 Decided: August 14, 2020 Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6115
CHAUNCEY BENNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL OF E.C.I.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Baltimore, at Maryland.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00105-JKB)
Submitted: July 20, 2020 Decided: August 14, 2020
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chauncey Demetrius Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chauncey Demetrius Bennett appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Defendant in this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Bennett v. Warden, Rick Foxwell, No. 1:19-cv-00105-JKB (D.
Md. Jan. 9, 2020). 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