Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0786-01.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

Reginald LEE, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dante HEMINGWAY, Defendant-Appellant, and Detective Gigano; Nate Stevenson, Defendants. Reginald Lee, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Detective Gigano, Defendant—Appellee, and Dante Hemingway; Nate Stevenson, Defendants.
    Nos. 04-1098, 04-1099.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 26, 2004.
    Decided: July 16, 2004.
    Neal Marcellas Janey, Sr., the Janey Law Firm, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-appellee.
    Reginald Lee, Appellee/Cross-appellant pro se.
    Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    No. 04-1098, affirmed; No. 04-1099, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cross-appeals, Reginald Lee and Dante Hemingway appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment in Lee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. As to Hemingway’s appeal, No. 04-1098, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hemingway’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lee v. Hemingway, CA-02-2843-WDQ (D.Md. Dec. 16, 2003). We dismiss Lee’s appeal, No. 04-1099, as interlocutory because the district court has not yet entered a final, appealable order as to all parties. 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.

No. 04-1098, AFFIRMED;

No. 04-1099, DISMISSED