Aaron Roberts v. Corey Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00720-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658205]. Mailed to: Aaron B. Roberts. [15-6507]

Appeal: 15-6507

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6507

AARON B. ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COREY WALKER, CCMSII; R. EBERSOLE, Lt.; A. HARTLE, COMSII;
R. DUDLEY, Sgt.; JACQUELENE A. SHANK, COMM; R. WISE, Capt.;
MAJ.
REINHARDT; B. REED, Lt.; SCOTT PETERSON, Det. Sgt.;
TINA M. STUMP; RODERICK R. SOWERS; JOSEPH M. PERRY; JOHN
FOUNTAIN; GARY D. MAYNARD; GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, c/o DPSCS;
DONI OBITTS; K. EASTON, CCMSII; RANDALL WATSON; SCOTT S.
OAKLEY, Director of the DPSCS Inmate Grievance Office;
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
DOCTOR LIN QUILLO; DOCTOR KEVEN JOHNSON; RN MICHELLE AUTREY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00720-GLR)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

September 11, 2015

Appeal: 15-6507

Doc: 18

Aaron B.
OFFICE OF
Elizabeth
TREBACH &

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Dorianne Avery Meloy,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland;
Erin Pavlick, Carolyn Israel Stein, BONNER, KIERNAN,
CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6507

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aaron

B.

Roberts

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting Defendants summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012)

action.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order.

Roberts v. Walker, No. 1:14-cv-00720-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 4,

2015).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3