Court Opinion

ID: 9902190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:40.872271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.002678
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6632      Doc: 14         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6632

        GARY EUGENE MADDOX, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        THE PAROLE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND AND ITS AGENTS; DAVID R.
        BLUMBERG, Chairman; DEANGELO PATTERSON, Agent; ROBIN D. HALL,
        Agent; AGENT MOXLEY; JOHN SMACK, Commissioner; JASON KECKLER,
        Commissioner,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01769-JRR)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gary Eugene Maddox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, Assistant Attorney
        General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
        Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6632      Doc: 14         Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gary Eugene Maddox, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment in favor of Defendants on Maddox’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Limiting our

        review of the record to the issues raised in Maddox’s informal brief, we find no reversible

        error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is

        limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. Maddox v. The Parole Comm’n of Md. & its Agents, No. 1:22-cv-01769-JRR

        (D. Md. May 25, 2023). 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