Court Opinion

ID: 9939374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:00:47.275905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:13.760442
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6437     Doc: 11         Filed: 02/08/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 21-6437

        JEFFREY CORPORAL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ACTING ASSISTANT WARDEN BUTLER; LT. JAMES SMITH; CCMS CORY
        M. WALKER; CCMSII JOSEPH R. JEFCOAT; CCMSII RODNEY L. DAVIS;
        COMMISSIONER O. WAYNE HILL; SECRETARY ROBERT GREEN,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     v.

        THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                            Party-in-Interest.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-01809-DKC)

        Submitted: November 9, 2023                                  Decided: February 8, 2024

        Before GREGORY and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6437      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/08/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6437     Doc: 11         Filed: 02/08/2024    Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Jeffrey Corporal appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for

        summary judgment and denying relief on Corporal’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

        We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order. Corporal v. Butler, No. 8:20-cv-01809-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2021).

        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

                                                   3