Vernon Leftridge v. John Doe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-03499-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999331886]. Mailed to: V. Leftridge. [13-2268]

Appeal: 13-2268

Doc: 16

Filed: 04/08/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2268

VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOE, K-9 Officer Wicomico County; JOHN DOE, Over-theair Communication Officer Wicomico County; JOHN DOE,
Internal Affairs Officer of Wicomico County; JOHN DOE, in
his individual capacity and official capacity as a law
enforcement officer of Wicomico County Sheriff’s Department;
JOHN DOE, Internal Affairs Officer of Wicomico County; JOHN
DOE, Dispatch Officer of Wicomico County; JOHN DOE, Dispatch
Officer of Wicomico County; JOHN DOE, Maryland State
Trooper; JOHN DOE, Maryland State Trooper; JANE DOE,
Internal
Affairs
Officer
Wicomico
County;
JOHN
DOE,
Salisbury Police Officer; MICHAEL KELLY MATTHEWS; BENJAMIN
CHARLES PARSONS; HOWARD LEE BOWDEN; JANE DOE, Salisbury
Police Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MICHAEL LEWIS,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03499-ELH)

Submitted:

March 28, 2014

Decided:

April 8, 2014

Appeal: 13-2268

Doc: 16

Filed: 04/08/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2268

Doc: 16

Filed: 04/08/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr., appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
and denying his motion for reconsideration.
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

Leftridge v.

Matthews, No. 1:11-cv-03499-ELH (D. Md. filed Sept. 30, 2013,
entered Oct. 1, 2013; filed Oct. 10, 2013, entered Oct. 11,
2013).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3