Quindell Mercer v. Frank Bishop, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 229 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7224
QUINDELL MERCER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FRANK BISHOP, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-02181-GLR)
Submitted: December 15, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quindell Mercer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quindell Mercer appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) and its order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion and dismissing his motion seeking leave to
amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error in the district court’s order dismissing
Mercer’s action and its ruling denying his Rule 59(e) motion.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Mercer v. Bishop, No. 1:14-cv-02181-GLR (D. Md. July 25
& Aug. 6, 2014).
With respect to the district court’s ruling dismissing
Mercer’s motion seeking leave to amend, we affirm it on the
ground that the proposed amendment was futile. See Laber v.
Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny
Mercer’s motions to appoint counsel and for the United States
Marshal to effect service and 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