Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0267-01.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

Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Commissioner; David Barthalow; Frederick J. Nastri; Albert Earl Davis; Jon Galley; Bobby Shearin; Frank Bishop, Jr.; Donald Crowe; Douglas Devore; Tinnele Winters; Robert M. Friend; Ketterman, Lt.; O.W. Creek; W.D. Slate; Robert Huff; B.A. Wilt; John Doe, Sgt., H.U.-4; M.B. Garrison; S. Winebrenner; Jeffrey Shimko; Jeremy Linaburg; R. Gover; R. Graham; O.K. Berry; James Beeman; R. Shields; R. Goss; Milaney Liller; Charlene Hetty Trenum; Barbara Newlon; Isais Tessema; Kathleen Greene, Warden; Bruce Bozman; Lt. Galligher, Lt.; Maycock, Maj.; Tyler, Capt., Mailroom Supervisor; Persinger; Scott S. Oakley, Mr.—Executive Director, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-7498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 21, 2012.
    Decided: June 25, 2012.
    Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven E. Tarpley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tarpley v. Stouffer, No. 1:10-cv-02140-BEL (D.Md. Oct. 11, 2012). 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.