Case Name: Isaac Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PVO, Deputy USM; Antoine K. Weston, MPD # 2076; John Andrews, MPD # 3959; Jame Brooks, Jr., Deputy USM; Michael Shavne Williams, Deputy USM # 5315, Defendants-Appellees, and Parris N. Glendening, Governor for Maryland; Wayne K., Executive Director; John S. Farrell, Chief Police, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 02-7012
Parties: Isaac Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PVO, Deputy USM; Antoine K. Weston, MPD # 2076; John Andrews, MPD # 3959; Jame Brooks, Jr., Deputy USM; Michael Shavne Williams, Deputy USM # 5315, Defendants-Appellees, and Parris N. Glendening, Governor for Maryland; Wayne K., Executive Director; John S. Farrell, Chief Police, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
Isaac Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PVO, Deputy USM; Antoine K. Weston, MPD # 2076; John Andrews, MPD # 3959; Jame Brooks, Jr., Deputy USM; Michael Shavne Williams, Deputy USM # 5315, Defendants-Appellees, and Parris N. Glendening, Governor for Maryland; Wayne K., Executive Director; John S. Farrell, Chief Police, Defendants.
No. 02-7012.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
Isaac Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, Jennifer Lilore Huesman, Ariana Wright Arnold, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Isaac Lee Williams appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Williams' Bivens action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Pvo, No. CA-01-1492 (D. Md. June 20, 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.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).