Steven Tarpley v. Stephen Moyer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01132-GLR. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000088086]. Mailed to: Steven Tarpley. [16-7363]

Appeal: 16-7363

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7363

STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN T. MOYER, Interm Secretary, Department of Public Safety &
Correctional Services; WARDEN BOBBY P. SHEARIN; FRANK B. BISHOP,
JR.; RICHARD S. MILLER, Acting Warden of North Branch Correctional
Facility; CARROLL A. PARRISH; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; WENDELL M.
FRANCE, Acting Deputy Secretary of Operations; SGT. BRIAN W. CUSTER;
SGT. LEAH A. YOUNGBLOOD; C.O. II ZACHERY D. GENTZLER; C.O. II
CORY A. DOLLEY; LT. BRADLEY A. WILT; C.O. II NICHOLAS J. SOLTAS;
C.O. MAJOR RONALD R. STOTTLER; C.O. MAJOR ROBERT M. FRIEND;
RICHARD S. RODERICK, Correctional Case Managment Manager; C.O. II
STEVEN J. MILLER, JR.; SGT. WALTER E. ISER, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01132-GLR)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: May 25, 2017

Appeal: 16-7363

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7363

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tarpley v. Moyer, No.
1:15-cv-01132-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3