Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0123-02.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

Timothy J. MARTIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer GOODMAN, 2960; Corporal Hamilton, 3154; Officer Griffith, 2905, Defendants-Appellees, and K-9 Brutus, Defendant.
    No. 00-7284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2001.
    Timothy J. Martin, Sr., pro Se. Jeffrey Grant Cook, Baltimore County Office of Law, Towson, MD, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Timothy J. Martin, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Martin’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Goodman, No. CA-99-3159-AW (D.Md. Aug. 24, 2000). 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. 
      
       The district court entered its order granting summaiy judgment for Defendants prior to the expiration of the time Martin was given to file a reply to the Defendants' supplement to the motion. However, because Martin subsequently filed his response and the district court thoroughly reviewed it, any error was harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61.