Case Name: Michael CHEW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; James Tichnell, Defendants-Appellees, and Paul Wisengoff; Gregory Birch; Bruce Bozman; Denise Gelsinger; Scott Rowe, Correctional Case Management Specialist; Hamilton, Gang Intel, Defendants, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 591 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 14-7437
Parties: Michael CHEW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; James Tichnell, Defendants-Appellees, and Paul Wisengoff; Gregory Birch; Bruce Bozman; Denise Gelsinger; Scott Rowe, Correctional Case Management Specialist; Hamilton, Gang Intel, Defendants, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Michael CHEW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; James Tichnell, Defendants-Appellees, and Paul Wisengoff; Gregory Birch; Bruce Bozman; Denise Gelsinger; Scott Rowe, Correctional Case Management Specialist; Hamilton, Gang Intel, Defendants, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest.
No. 14-7437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2015.
Michael Chew, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Chew appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chew's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chew v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D.Md. Sept. 2, 2014). 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.