Case ID: f-appx_214/html/0332-01.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

Paul GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DISTRICT COURT, for Baltimore County, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-7527.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
    Decided: Jan. 23, 2007.
    Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Graham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint. The district court stated that the document was a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) complaint, but because Graham is not challenging a conviction or sentence, the claim is more properly construed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Graham v. District Court, No. 1:06-cv-02038-CCB (D.Md. Aug. 22, 2006). We deny Graham’s motions for appointment of counsel and oral argument. 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.

2.