Case ID: f-appx_567/html/0212-01.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

Francis C. MBEWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN NAMES, (MCDCR) MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION MAIL ROOM CLERKS; David, Cpt., Head of Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (MCDCR) Mail Room; Richard Dovey, C.O.S., Chief of Security of MCI-H; Richard, C.O. II, former Property Room Officer of MCI-H; WACH, Mr., Case Manager; Stevenus, Ms., Librarian, MCI-H; MCI-H; MCDCR Mail Room, Defendants-Appellees, and Stouffer, C.D.C, Head of Correction for the State of Maryland; Sowers, Warden (former) m MCI-H; Webb, Warden, MCI-H; Scott, MJ, Shift Commander, MCI-H; Clevenger, C.O. II, Tier Officer for B2; Williams, Lt., Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; Powell, Lt., former Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; Vinson, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; Worgul, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; HULL, Cpt., Dietary Manager of MCI-H, Defendants.
    
      No. 14-6059.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 17, 2014.
    Decided: April 22, 2014.
    Francis C. Mbewe, Appellant Pro Se. Silvia Carolina Kineh, Office of the County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland; Siobhan Kelly Madison, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francis C. Mbewe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against the Appel-lees for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mbewe v. Unknown Names, No. 8:12-cv-03344-AW, 2013 WL 6255382 (D.Md. Dec. 3, 2013). 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.