Steven Tarpley v. Charlene Trenum

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-02140-BEL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998706105]. Mailed to: Steven E. Tarpley. [11-6767]

Appeal: 11-6767

Document: 15

Date Filed: 10/21/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6767

STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLENE HETTY TRENUM; ISAIS TESSEMA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
J.
MICHAEL
STOUFFER,
Commissioner;
DAVID
BARTHALOW;
FREDERICK NASTRI; ALBERT EARL DAVIS; JON GALLEY; BOBBY
SHEARIN; FRANK BISHOP, JR.; DONALD CROWE; DOUGLAS DEVORE;
TINNELE WINTERS; ROBERT M. FRIEND; KETTERMAN, Lieutenant; O.
W. CREEK; W. D. SLATE; ROBERT HUFF; B. A. WILT; JOHN DOE,
Sgt., H.U.-4; M. B. GARRISON; S. WINEBRENNER; JEFFREY
SHIMKO; JEREMY LINABURG; R. GOVER; R. GRAHAM; O. K. BERRY;
JAMES BEEMAN; R. SHIELDS; R. GOSS; MILANEY LILLER; BARBARA
NEWLON;
KATHLEEN
GREENE,
Warden;
BRUCE
BOZMAN;
LT.
GALLIGHER; MAJOR MAYCOCK; TYLER, Capt., Mailroom Supervisor;
PERSINGER; SCOTT S. OAKLEY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02140-BEL)

Submitted:

October 18, 2011

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

October 21, 2011

Appeal: 11-6767

Document: 15

Date Filed: 10/21/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se.
Philip Melton Andrews,
Ryan Alexander Mitchell, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6767

Document: 15

Date Filed: 10/21/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Tarpley v. Trenum, No. 1:10-cv-02140-BEL (D. Md. filed

June 1, 2011, and entered June 2, 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.

AFFIRMED

3