Case Name: Terry Wendell COPELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. HURLEY, Forensic Scientist; Steven E. Harris; Nancy S. Forster; Robert F. Barry; Michael R. Braudes; Scott Whitney; Thomas A. Kennedy; Carol E. Chance; Howard Margulies; Kevin P. Clark; James W. Hagin, Jr., Detective Sergeant; Ronald A. Karasic; John Merten, F.B.I. Agent; Ronald Lamartina, Detective Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-30
Citations: 137 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 05-6291
Parties: Terry Wendell COPELAND, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Robert J. HURLEY, Forensic Scientist; Steven E. Harris; Nancy S. Forster; Robert F. Barry; Michael R. Braudes; Scott Whitney; Thomas A. Kennedy; Carol E. Chance; Howard Margulies; Kevin P. Clark; James W. Hagin, Jr., Detective Sergeant; Ronald A. Karasic; John Merten, F.B.I. Agent; Ronald Lamartina, Detective Sergeant, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
Terry Wendell COPELAND, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Robert J. HURLEY, Forensic Scientist; Steven E. Harris; Nancy S. Forster; Robert F. Barry; Michael R. Braudes; Scott Whitney; Thomas A. Kennedy; Carol E. Chance; Howard Margulies; Kevin P. Clark; James W. Hagin, Jr., Detective Sergeant; Ronald A. Karasic; John Merten, F.B.I. Agent; Ronald Lamartina, Detective Sergeant, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2005.
Decided June 30, 2005.
Terry Wendell Copeland, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Terry Wendell Copeland 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 Copeland v. Hurley, No. CA-05-10-AMD (D.Md. Jan. 7, 2005). 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