Case ID: f-appx_76/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Demetric Gray PEARSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-7004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 24, 2003.
    Demetrie Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pearson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pearson v. Saar, Nos. CA-03-1495-RDB, CA-03-1496-RDB (D. Md. filed June 16, 2003 & entered June 17, 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.