Summary
permitting pro se party to file surreply that does not address new material but also does not "unduly prejudice defendants"
Summary of this case from Boland v. Amazon.com Sales, Inc.Opinion
No. 11-7465
03-19-2012
CLEAVEN L. WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN MERRITT; BARTEE, Assistant Warden; OFFICER YOUNG; SERGEANT CALVIN WILLIAMS; OFFICER LARYEA; OFFICER SAUNDERS; MARIA JOHNSON; NURSE JANE DOE; FLORENCE FOSTER, Inmate Grievance Coordinator; MR. COLEY; KRUMP, Chief of Security; DR. JOHN DOE, University of Md Shock Trauma; C.O. CRAIG WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees.
Cleaven L. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eugene Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00935-CCB)
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cleaven L. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eugene Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Cleaven L. Williams, Jr., appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Merritt, No. 1:10-cv-00935-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2011; Jul. 14, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Claim V on the ground that Williams failed to offer any evidence, apart from his own bald and conclusory allegations, to support his claims. See Erwin v. United States, 591 F.3d 313, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to support the nonmoving party's case).
AFFIRMED