Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0205-01.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

Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-1414.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2004.
    Decided June 16, 2004.
    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant pro se. Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connell, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    
      Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Sindram appeals the district court’s amended order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sindram, v. Sengal, No. CA-04-1-A (E.D.Va. Mar. 24, 2004). We deny Sin-dram’s motion for 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