Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06214/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammad Biglari

Charles Bouton
Appellee
Deborah Buie
Appellee
James A. Calhoun-El

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Appellee
Inmate Grievance Office
Appellee
Bruce Wayne Koenig
Appellant
Gary Maynard
Appellee
Scott Oakley
Appellee
Office of Administrative Hearings
Appellee
State of Maryland
Appellee
Reginald S. Tucker

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6214

BRUCE WAYNE KOENIG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

REGINALD S. TUCKER; MOHAMMAD BIGLARI; JAMES A. CALHOUN-EL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; DEBORAH BUIE, Administrative Law 

Judge; CHARLES BOUTON, Administrative Law Judge; INMATE 

GRIEVANCE OFFICE; SCOTT OAKLEY, Executive Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-03488-CCB)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Wayne Koenig, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 10-6214 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6214 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Wayne Koenig appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Koenig v. State of Maryland, No. 1:09-

cv-03488-CCB (D. Md. filed Jan. 13, 2010 & entered Jan. 14, 

2010). 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

Appeal: 10-6214 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3