Court Opinion

ID: 9946008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:13.586075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.283755
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6312      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6312

        DAQUAN L. TYLER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DENISE GELSINGER, Former Warden; TODD FAITH, Security Chief; STACEY
        KRETZER, Hagerstown RCI Finance-Business Office Director/Supervisor; THE
        STATE OF MARYLAND; WAYNE HILL, Commissioner of Corrections;
        STEPHEN T. MOYER, 2018 Secretary, Department of Public Safety and
        Correctional Services,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02777-DLB)

        Submitted: January 29, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daquan L. Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6312      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Daquan L. Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Tyler v. Gelsinger, No. 1:21-cv-02777-DLB (D. Md.

        Feb. 23, 2023); see Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (holding that, in suit

        raising denial of access to courts, “the underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or

        lost, is an element that must be described in the complaint” and the complaint must

        “identify a remedy . . . not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought”). We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    2