Case Name: Warren CHASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phlonda PEAY; Jack Kavanagh, Warden; David McKoy, (C.O.#2); Eric Thompson; Ronald Tolbert; Eness Brown, Lieutenant; Vanessa Willis, Sgt. Ms.; Keith Harris, Correctional Officer # 2 Mr.; Bernard Jones, Lieutenant Mr.; Frank Delbridge, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; Benson Bell, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Samuel Lee, Major; Nicole Knox, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; Denise White, Sergeant; David Roane, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Eric Nelson, Sergeant; Charles Graham, Captain; Thomas Carter, Sergeant Mr.; Rodney Byrd, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Daryl Robinson, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Ernest Potee, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Amahl Foster, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Deborah Shifflett, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; George Braxton, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Vincent Moore, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Jehu Ragins, Mr., (C.O.# 2), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-02
Citations: 98 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 03-7818
Parties: Warren CHASE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Phlonda PEAY; Jack Kavanagh, Warden; David McKoy, (C.O.#2); Eric Thompson; Ronald Tolbert; Eness Brown, Lieutenant; Vanessa Willis, Sgt. Ms.; Keith Harris, Correctional Officer # 2 Mr.; Bernard Jones, Lieutenant Mr.; Frank Delbridge, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; Benson Bell, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Samuel Lee, Major; Nicole Knox, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; Denise White, Sergeant; David Roane, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Eric Nelson, Sergeant; Charles Graham, Captain; Thomas Carter, Sergeant Mr.; Rodney Byrd, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Daryl Robinson, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Ernest Potee, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Amahl Foster, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Deborah Shifflett, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; George Braxton, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Vincent Moore, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Jehu Ragins, Mr., (C.O.# 2), Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Warren CHASE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Phlonda PEAY; Jack Kavanagh, Warden; David McKoy, (C.O.#2); Eric Thompson; Ronald Tolbert; Eness Brown, Lieutenant; Vanessa Willis, Sgt. Ms.; Keith Harris, Correctional Officer # 2 Mr.; Bernard Jones, Lieutenant Mr.; Frank Delbridge, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; Benson Bell, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Samuel Lee, Major; Nicole Knox, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; Denise White, Sergeant; David Roane, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Eric Nelson, Sergeant; Charles Graham, Captain; Thomas Carter, Sergeant Mr.; Rodney Byrd, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Daryl Robinson, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Ernest Potee, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Amahl Foster, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Deborah Shifflett, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; George Braxton, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Vincent Moore, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Jehu Ragins, Mr., (C.O.# 2), Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-7818.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 14, 2004.
Decided: June 2, 2004.
James E. Weaver, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph B. Tetrault, Prisoner Rights Information System, Chestertown, Maryland, for Appellant.
J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, David P. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase appeals a district court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court opinion and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chase v. Peay, 286 F.Supp.2d 523 (D.Md.2003). 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