Brandon Roberts v. Sgt. Julie Thrasher


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [1000049497-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [1000019133-2]; denying Motion to supplement [1000032636-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01906-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000090062]. Mailed to: Brandon Roberts. [16-7580]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7580 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7580 BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. JULIE M. THRASHER; CO. II M. DAVIES; LT. S. MCKENZIE; CAPT. R. M. FRIEND; HEARING OFFICER PETER JUKNELIS; FORMER LT. DAMON THOMAS; LT. THOMAS SIRES; FORMER WARDEN BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01906-ELH) Submitted: May 16, 2017 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: May 30, 2017 Appeal: 16-7580 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Brandon Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Thrasher, No. 1:15-cv-01906-ELH (D. Md. July 20, 2015; Oct. 4, 2016). We grant Roberts’ motion to amend his informal brief, and deny his motions for leave to file a record appendix and to supplement the record as moot. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?