Corey Armstrong v. Kathleen Green


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00342-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998536651] [11-6021]

Download PDF
Corey Armstrong v. Kathleen Green Doc. 0 Case: 11-6021 Document: 13 Date Filed: 03/03/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6021 COREY V. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden (E.C.I); LT. HAYWARD, (E.C.I); WISENOFF, Case Manager (E.C.I); GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of D.P.S.C.S.; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner of Corrections; JOHN ROWLEY, Warden (N.B.C.I); JAMES K. HOLWAGER, Ph.D. (N.B.C.I.); RICHARD GRAHAM, Asst. Warden (N.B.C.I); LILLER, Case Manager Supervisor (N.B.C.I); DURST, Case Manager; DEFENDANTS 1-9, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00342-WDQ) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey V. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 11-6021 Document: 13 Date Filed: 03/03/2011 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Corey V. Armstrong, a state prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief 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 Armstrong v. Green, No. 1:08-cv-00342We dispense with oral argument by the district court. WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2010). because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?