UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1098
REGINALD LEE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANTE HEMINGWAY,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DETECTIVE GIGANO; NATE STEVENSON,
Defendants.
No. 04-1099
REGINALD LEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DETECTIVE GIGANO,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DANTE HEMINGWAY; NATE STEVENSON,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-2843-WDQ)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 04-1098, affirmed; No. 04-1099, dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Neal Marcellas Janey, Sr., THE JANEY LAW FIRM, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-appellee. Reginald Lee,
Appellee/Cross-appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cross-appeals, Reginald Lee and
Dante Hemingway appeal the district court’s denial of their motions
for summary judgment in Lee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. As
to Hemingway’s appeal, No. 04-1098, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
Hemingway’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Lee v. Hemingway, CA-02-2843-WDQ (D. Md.
Dec. 16, 2003). We dismiss Lee’s appeal, No. 04-1099, as
interlocutory because the district court has not yet entered a
final, appealable order as to all parties. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
No. 04-1098, AFFIRMED;
No. 04-1099, DISMISSED
- 3 -