Court Opinion

ID: 989556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:08:19.185807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:41.691843
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 96-6031

DONALD R. DEHANEY, JR.,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

WILLIAM L. SMITH,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
95-325-DKC)

Submitted:   May 16, 1996                    Decided:   June 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald R. Dehaney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Dehaney v. Smith, No. CA-95-325-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1995).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         AFFIRMED

                                2