Case Name: Larry HAMILTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Van Evans, Major; Ciccarelli, Dr.; Department of Corrections; O. Wayne Hill, Warden; Carroll Parrish, Asst. Warden; O. Williams, R.N.; Division of Corrections; Prime Medical Care, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-12
Citations: 401 F. App'x 814
Docket Number: No. 10-6970
Parties: Larry HAMILTON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Van Evans, Major; Ciccarelli, Dr.; Department of Corrections; O. Wayne Hill, Warden; Carroll Parrish, Asst. Warden; O. Williams, R.N.; Division of Corrections; Prime Medical Care, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
Larry HAMILTON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Van Evans, Major; Ciccarelli, Dr.; Department of Corrections; O. Wayne Hill, Warden; Carroll Parrish, Asst. Warden; O. Williams, R.N.; Division of Corrections; Prime Medical Care, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-6970.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 12, 2010.
Larry Hamilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rodger Owen Robertson, Law Office of Joseph M. Jagielski, Baltimore, Maryland; David J. McManus, Jr., Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Hamilton, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Appellee Evans has moved to dismiss, arguing Hamilton's notice of appeal was untimely. We deny Evans's motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Hamilton v. Dept, of Corrections, Nos. 8:09-cv-00516-RWT; 8:09-cv-00722-RWT, 2010 WL 2163917 (D.Md. May 26, 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.