Chase v. Peay ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7818
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PHLONDA PEAY; JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; DAVID
MCKOY, (C.O. #2); ERIC THOMPSON; RONALD
TOLBERT; ENESS BROWN, Lieutenant; VANESSA
WILLIS, Sgt. Ms.; KEITH HARRIS, Correctional
Officer #2 Mr.; BERNARD JONES, Lieutenant Mr.;
FRANK DELBRIDGE, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.;
BENSON BELL, Correctional Officer #1, Mr.;
SAMUEL LEE, Major; NICOLE KNOX, Correctional
Officer #2, Ms.; DENISE WHITE, Sergeant; DAVID
ROANE, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; ERIC
NELSON, Sergeant; CHARLES GRAHAM, Captain;
THOMAS CARTER, Sergeant Mr.; RODNEY BYRD,
Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; DARYL ROBINSON,
Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; ERNEST POTEE,
Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; AMAHL FOSTER,
Correctional Officer #1, Mr.; DEBORAH
SHIFFLETT, Correctional Officer #2, Ms.;
GEORGE BRAXTON, Correctional Officer #1, Mr.;
VINCENT MOORE, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.;
JEHU RAGINS, Mr., (C.O. #2),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
98-2367-CCB-1)
Submitted: May 14, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Weaver, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland; Joseph B. Tetrault, PRISONER RIGHTS INFORMATION SYSTEM,
Chestertown, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General of Maryland, David P. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase appeals a district court order granting the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his amended
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and
the district court opinion and find no error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chase v. Peay,
286 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. Md. 2003). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -