Case Name: Duane Gerald DAVIS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Governor Martin O'Malley; James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police; Gregg L. Bernstein, Baltimore City State's Attorney; Scott D. Schellenberger, Baltimore County State's Attorney, In their official capacities and as individuals, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-25
Citations: 530 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 13-1157
Parties: Duane Gerald DAVIS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Governor Martin O’Malley; James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police; Gregg L. Bernstein, Baltimore City State’s Attorney; Scott D. Schellenberger, Baltimore County State’s Attorney, In their official capacities and as individuals, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
Duane Gerald DAVIS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Governor Martin O’Malley; James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police; Gregg L. Bernstein, Baltimore City State’s Attorney; Scott D. Schellenberger, Baltimore County State’s Attorney, In their official capacities and as individuals, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1157.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2013.
Decided: June 25, 2013.
Duane Gerald Davis, Sr., Appellant pro se.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Duane Gerald Davis, Sr., appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil action. Davis titled his action as a "Complaint for Fraud, Unlawful Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and for Declaratory Relief," in which he also sought mandamus relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Maryland, No. 1:12-cv-03570-GLR (D.Md. Jan. 11, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.