Case Name: Reginald LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin CLARK; John Doe, Jr.; Richard Roe, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Baltimore Police Department; Theo Fleet, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Martin O'Malley; Douglas L. Patterson; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore; Sheila Dixon, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-25
Citations: 266 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 07-1702
Parties: Reginald LEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin CLARK; John Doe, Jr.; Richard Roe, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Baltimore Police Department; Theo Fleet, Officer, Defendants—Appellees, and Martin O’Malley; Douglas L. Patterson; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore; Sheila Dixon, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Reginald LEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin CLARK; John Doe, Jr.; Richard Roe, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Baltimore Police Department; Theo Fleet, Officer, Defendants—Appellees, and Martin O’Malley; Douglas L. Patterson; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore; Sheila Dixon, Defendants.
No. 07-1702.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2008.
Reginald Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Stakem Hornig, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick Donald Sheridan, William Rowe Phelan, Jr., Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Lee appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lee v. Clark, No. 1:05-cv-00897-WDQ (D. Md. June 26, 2007). 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.