Case Name: Malcolm Maxwell RYIDU, a/k/a Richard E. Janey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David LANCASTER, Officer; Krauss, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Western Correctional Institution; Jon P. Galley, Warden; Shaffer, Correctional Officer, II; Unknown Officers of the Division of Correction, identified in statement; Officer White; Officer Farris, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-24
Citations: 41 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 02-6689
Parties: Malcolm Maxwell RYIDU, a/k/a Richard E. Janey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David LANCASTER, Officer; Krauss, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Western Correctional Institution; Jon P. Galley, Warden; Shaffer, Correctional Officer, II; Unknown Officers of the Division of Correction, identified in statement; Officer White; Officer Farris, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 41
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Malcolm Maxwell RYIDU, a/k/a Richard E. Janey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David LANCASTER, Officer; Krauss, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Western Correctional Institution; Jon P. Galley, Warden; Shaffer, Correctional Officer, II; Unknown Officers of the Division of Correction, identified in statement; Officer White; Officer Farris, Defendants.
No. 02-6689.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 18, 2002.
Decided July 24, 2002.
Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ryidu v. Lancaster, No. CA-01-2950-H (D.Md. Apr. 9, 2002). 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.