Case Name: Steven Karl Edward BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer E. PRUITT, Co II, 3-11 shift; Lieutenant C. Widdowson, 3-11 shift; Sergeant Kestler, 3-11 shift, each in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-15
Citations: 466 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 11-7179
Parties: Steven Karl Edward BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer E. PRUITT, Co II, 3-11 shift; Lieutenant C. Widdowson, 3-11 shift; Sergeant Kestler, 3-11 shift, each in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 168–168

Head Matter:
Steven Karl Edward BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer E. PRUITT, Co II, 3-11 shift; Lieutenant C. Widdowson, 3-11 shift; Sergeant Kestler, 3-11 shift, each in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-7179.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 15, 2012.
Steven Karl Edward Bradford, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah W. Rice, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Karl Edward Bradford appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bradford v. Pruitt, No. 1:10-cv-03619WDQ, 2011 WL 3840990 (D.Md. Aug. 26, 2011). 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.