Marc Cason v. MDPSCS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARC S. CASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. M.D.P.S.C.S.; CMS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01024-CCB)
August 14, 2008
August 22, 2008
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc S. Cason, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Marc S. Cason appeals the district court's order
dismissing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cason v. M.D.P.S.C.S., No. 1:08-cv-01024Because the district court's dismissal
CCB (D. Md. May 9, 2008).
was Cason's fourth strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000) ("PLRA"),1 Cason may not proceed in forma pauperis in any or civil action or appeal filed unless while he is 28 he is
detained in of serious
§ 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.
Although the district court's order indicates that its dismissal constituted Cason's third PLRA strike, a review of Cason's numerous lawsuits reveals that Cason was previously issued three strikes. See Cason v. Weeks, No. 08-cv-00946-CCB (D. Md. May 7, 2008), aff'd, No. 08-6839 (4th Cir. July 28, 2008) (third strike); 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-cv-1186 (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?