Court Opinion

ID: 9403974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:01:02.251642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.614760
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7208      Doc: 20         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7208

        ROBERT CLIFFORD WEDDINGTON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DFC MICHAEL SAUNDERS, #1114; DFC TOM LOTTERER, #1178; DFC JESSICA
        SANDERS, #1196; DFC LEON DIXON, #1102,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01985-TDC)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Clifford Weddington, Appellant Pro Se. Carl N. Zacarias, OFFICE OF THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7208     Doc: 20         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Robert Clifford Weddington appeals the district court’s order granting the

        Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred

        by the statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Weddington v. Saunders, No. 8:19-cv-

        01985-TDC (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2022). 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