Case Name: Jay Timothy LURZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; Lieutenant Zang; Mr. Roach; Officer Wiers, Coii; Officer Wienbrenner, Coii; Officer Watson, Officer, Coii; Sergeant Wilson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 127 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 04-7500
Parties: Jay Timothy LURZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; Lieutenant Zang; Mr. Roach; Officer Wiers, Coii; Officer Wienbrenner, Coii; Officer Watson, Officer, Coii; Sergeant Wilson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
Jay Timothy LURZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; Lieutenant Zang; Mr. Roach; Officer Wiers, Coii; Officer Wienbrenner, Coii; Officer Watson, Officer, Coii; Sergeant Wilson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-7500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Jay Timothy Lurz, Appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jay Timothy Lurz appeals the district court order awarding summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of those claims on the reasoning of the district court. See Lurz v. Galley, No. CA-04-333-1-AMD (D.Md. Aug. 26, 2004). Lurz raises a First Amendment issue for the first time in this appeal, but we decline to address this claim because Lurz failed to properly raise it in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) ("[i]ssues raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered."). We also deny Lurz's motion for appointment of counsel. 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