Case Name: Stacy Elizabeth LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and William Smith; Quinnie Matthews; Solomon Hejerika; Anthony Osandu; Sergeant Keenan, Patuxent Institution; Stuart O. Sims, Secretary, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Safety and Transportation, State of Maryland, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-21
Citations: 29 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 01-2375
Parties: Stacy Elizabeth LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and William Smith; Quinnie Matthews; Solomon Hejerika; Anthony Osandu; Sergeant Keenan, Patuxent Institution; Stuart O. Sims, Secretary, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Safety and Transportation, State of Maryland, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 29
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Stacy Elizabeth LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and William Smith; Quinnie Matthews; Solomon Hejerika; Anthony Osandu; Sergeant Keenan, Patuxent Institution; Stuart O. Sims, Secretary, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Safety and Transportation, State of Maryland, Defendants.
No. 01-2375.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
Decided Feb. 21, 2002.
Stacy Elizabeth Lee, Pro Se. Scott Sheldon Oakley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stacy Elizabeth Lee appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of her action for failure to comply with Md. Local R. 106. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lee v. Maryland Dep't of Public Safety & Corr. Servs., No. CA-98-2825-MJG (D.Md. Oct. 19, 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.