Steven Tarpley v. J. Stouffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-02140-BEL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998881789]. Mailed to: Steven Tarpley. [11-7498]

Appeal: 11-7498

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7498

STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; DAVID BARTHALOW; FREDERICK J.
NASTRI; ALBERT EARL DAVIS; JON GALLEY; BOBBY SHEARIN; FRANK
BISHOP, JR.; DONALD CROWE; DOUGLAS DEVORE; TINNELE WINTERS;
ROBERT M. FRIEND; KETTERMAN, Lt.; 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; CHARLENE HETTY TRENUM; BARBARA NEWLON; ISAIS TESSEMA;
KATHLEEN GREENE, Warden; BRUCE BOZMAN; LT. GALLIGHER, Lt.;
MAYCOCK, Maj.; TYLER, Capt., Mailroom Supervisor; PERSINGER;
SCOTT S. OAKLEY, Mr. - Executive Director,
Defendants - Appellees.

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:

June 21, 2012

Decided:

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 25, 2012

Appeal: 11-7498

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephanie Judith Lane
Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-7498

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 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.

Stouffer,

No.

Oct. 11,

2012).

We

dispense

with

facts

and

materials

legal
before

1:10-cv-02140-BEL
oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

(D.

Md.

because

the

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3