Case Name: Timothy J. MARTIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer GOODMAN, 2960; Corporal Hamilton, 3154; Officer Griffith, 2905, Defendants-Appellees, and K-9 Brutus, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-28
Citations: 5 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 00-7284
Parties: Timothy J. MARTIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer GOODMAN, 2960; Corporal Hamilton, 3154; Officer Griffith, 2905, Defendants-Appellees, and K-9 Brutus, Defendant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Timothy J. MARTIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer GOODMAN, 2960; Corporal Hamilton, 3154; Officer Griffith, 2905, Defendants-Appellees, and K-9 Brutus, Defendant.
No. 00-7284.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
Decided Feb. 28, 2001.
Timothy J. Martin, Sr., pro Se. Jeffrey Grant Cook, Baltimore County Office of Law, Towson, MD, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timothy J. Martin, Sr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Martin's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Goodman, No. CA-99-3159-AW (D.Md. Aug. 24, 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.
The district court entered its order granting summaiy judgment for Defendants prior to the expiration of the time Martin was given to file a reply to the Defendants' supplement to the motion. However, because Martin subsequently filed his response and the district court thoroughly reviewed it, any error was harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61.