Case Name: Maurice Cortez PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; Stuart Simms, State's Attorney for Baltimore City; Timothy Doory, Assistant State's Attorney for Baltimore City; Patricia Jessemy, State's Attorney for Baltimore City; Stephanie Lane-Weber, State Attorney General for Maryland; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for Maryland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-02
Citations: 15 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 01-6507
Parties: Maurice Cortez PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; Stuart Simms, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Timothy Doory, Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Patricia Jessemy, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Stephanie Lane-Weber, State Attorney General for Maryland; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Maurice Cortez PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; Stuart Simms, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Timothy Doory, Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Patricia Jessemy, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; Stephanie Lane-Weber, State Attorney General for Maryland; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2001.
Decided Aug. 2, 2001.
Maurice Cortez Proctor, pro se.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Maurice C. Proctor 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Proctor's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Proctor v. City of Baltimore, MD, No. CA-01-317-L (D. Md. filed Mar. 6, 2001; entered Mar. 7, 2001). 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.