Case Name: Mel Madou DUKULY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY; William Groce, sued under color of state law and in his individual capacity; C. Walls, Detective, # 1398, sued in his official and individual capacity; Prince George's County Police Department, sued as a municipality county government in the state of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-01
Citations: 5 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 00-7484
Parties: Mel Madou DUKULY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY; William Groce, sued under color of state law and in his individual capacity; C. Walls, Detective, # 1398, sued in his official and individual capacity; Prince George’s County Police Department, sued as a municipality county government in the state of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 152–152

Head Matter:
Mel Madou DUKULY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY; William Groce, sued under color of state law and in his individual capacity; C. Walls, Detective, # 1398, sued in his official and individual capacity; Prince George’s County Police Department, sued as a municipality county government in the state of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7484.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
Decided March 1, 2001.
Mel Madou Dukuly, pro se. Jeffrey Peabody Ayres, Robin Bruekmann Bower-find, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, MD; Sean Daniel Wallace, John Anthony Bielec, Shalisha Hines Ivy, Rhonda Lee Weaver, County Attorney’s Office, Upper Marlboro, MD, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mel Madou Dukuly appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dukuly v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y, No. CA-99-1694-AMD (D.Md. Sept. 18, 2000). 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.