Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0988-01.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

Henry LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-6300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2008.
    Decided April 24, 2003.
    Henry Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Henry Lee appeals the district court’s 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 Lee v. Warden, No. CA-02-4203-MJG (D. Md. filed Jan. 6, 2003 & entered Jan. 7, 2003). We deny Lee’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.