Marc Cason, Sr. v. Richard Weeks

Filing 920080728

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6839 MARC S. CASON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD WEEKS; ROBERT CORRECTIONS; E.M.S.A., THOMAS; MARYLAND DIVISION OF Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00946-CCB) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc S. Cason, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc S. Cason, Sr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm See Cason v. Weeks, Because the district under the Prison for the reasons stated by the district court. No. 1:08-cv-00946-CCB (D. Md. May 7, 2008). court's dismissal was Cason's third strike Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000) ("PLRA"),* Cason may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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 Although the district court's order indicates that its dismissal constituted Cason's second PLRA strike, a review of Cason's numerous lawsuits reveals that Cason was previously issued two strikes. See Cason v. Maryland Div. of Corr., No. 06-cv-2032 (D. Md. filed Aug. 21, 2006; entered Aug. 22, 2006) (second strike); Cason v. Maryland Div. of Parole and Probation, No. 06-cv1186 (D. Md. May 17, 2006) (first strike). - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?