Court Opinion

ID: 9368150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 21:00:47.560841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.823601
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6327      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6327

        LIONEL LEE PRINCE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ALLEN GANG, Warden; OFFICER BOLA AJAO; SGT. ERIC WALKER;
        CORIZON HEALTH; JOSEPH JEFCOAT; SGT. CHUKWUMA NJOKU;
        KIMBERLY STEWART; MONTUNRAYO O. ADEGORUSI,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00535-GJH)

        Submitted: January 6, 2023                                        Decided: February 1, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lionel Lee Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL,
        O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6327     Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Lionel Lee Prince appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

        favor of Defendants in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

        the district court. Prince v. Gang, No. 8:20-cv-00535-GJH (D. Md. Feb. 28, 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