Case Name: Dante LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CHEUVRONT, II, Sergeant; Unknown Agent-Baltimore Police Department; Jeffrey Silk; Robert Stanton, Lieutenant; Baltimore Police Department; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; United States Marshals Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-26
Citations: 146 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 05-6621
Parties: Dante LINTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David CHEUVRONT, II, Sergeant; Unknown Agent—Baltimore Police Department; Jeffrey Silk; Robert Stanton, Lieutenant; Baltimore Police Department; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; United States Marshals Service, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Dante LINTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David CHEUVRONT, II, Sergeant; Unknown Agent—Baltimore Police Department; Jeffrey Silk; Robert Stanton, Lieutenant; Baltimore Police Department; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; United States Marshals Service, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6621.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided Oct. 26, 2005.
Dante Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Marcellas Janey, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland; Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, John Walter Sippel, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Allan Fry, Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dante Linton appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants in his action seeking return of property under Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on February 28, 2005, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing. See Linton v. Cheuvront, Nos. CA-03-99-RDB; CA-03-937-RDB (D. Md. filed Feb. 28, 2005 & entered Mar. 2, 2005). 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
Linton does not challenge on appeal the district court's disposition of the claims against the state defendants. He therefore has waived appellate review of any issue related to those defendants. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.").