Case Name: Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. CHRONISTER, Corrections Officer, Eastern Correctional Institution-East ("ECI-E"); Ms. Parks, Correctional Officer, ECI-E; Ms. Joseph, Sergeant, ECI-E; Mr. Webster, Lieutenant, ECI-E, in their individual and official capacities; Officer Davis; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-22
Citations: 371 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 09-7865
Parties: Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. CHRONISTER, Corrections Officer, Eastern Correctional Institution-East (“ECI-E”); Ms. Parks, Correctional Officer, ECI-E; Ms. Joseph, Sergeant, ECI-E; Mr. Webster, Lieutenant, ECI-E, in their individual and official capacities; Officer Davis; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. CHRONISTER, Corrections Officer, Eastern Correctional Institution-East (“ECI-E”); Ms. Parks, Correctional Officer, ECI-E; Ms. Joseph, Sergeant, ECI-E; Mr. Webster, Lieutenant, ECI-E, in their individual and official capacities; Officer Davis; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
No. 09-7865.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 22, 2010.
Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy G. Asemani, a frequent filer, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Asemani's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Asemani v. Chronister, No. 1:09-cv-00238-RDB, 2009 WL 3100589 (D.Md. Sept. 21, 2009). 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.