From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 31, 2011
445 F. App'x 689 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-7397

08-31-2011

BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S.C. FARRIS; CALVIN SMITH; JOHN ROWLEY, Defendants - Appellees, and KEITH DURST; FRED NASTRI, Defendants.

Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-01385-AW)

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Brandon Roberts, a state prisoner, appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and denying Roberts' motions to strike and for partial summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Farris, No. 8:09-cv-01385-AW (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2010). We grant Roberts' motion to file a memorandum of law in lieu of an informal brief. 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.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

Roberts v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 31, 2011
445 F. App'x 689 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Roberts v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.C. FARRIS; CALVIN SMITH; JOHN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Aug 31, 2011

Citations

445 F. App'x 689 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

King v. WCI Officers

(Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n [“Defs.' Reply”] at 6, ECF No. 28). In support thereof, they principally rely on…