Case Name: Charles BRENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, Individually and in Official Capacity; Paul Handy, Administrative Judge; Calvin Wilson, Hearing Officer; Counselor Cooper, Classification Counselor, Individually and in Official Capacity; R. Dryden, Security Chief, Individually and in Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 159 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 05-6909
Parties: Charles BRENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, Individually and in Official Capacity; Paul Handy, Administrative Judge; Calvin Wilson, Hearing Officer; Counselor Cooper, Classification Counselor, Individually and in Official Capacity; R. Dryden, Security Chief, Individually and in Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
Charles BRENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, Individually and in Official Capacity; Paul Handy, Administrative Judge; Calvin Wilson, Hearing Officer; Counselor Cooper, Classification Counselor, Individually and in Official Capacity; R. Dryden, Security Chief, Individually and in Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-6909.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
Charles Brent, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Brent 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 Brent v. Kupec, No. CA-04-1-3746 (D.Md. May 5, 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