UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6094
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS;
KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE
CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICIA SHEARIN,
Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD,
Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant;
J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN,
Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN,
Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S.
FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T.
RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant;
E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT,
Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D.
MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D.
CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE,
Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A.
BAILEY, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-00834-CCB)
Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Chase’s motion for injunctive relief and
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Commissioners, No. 1:08-cv-
00834-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2009). We note Chase failed to
indicate in his complaint that any specific Defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious needs. See Smith v.
Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). 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.
AFFIRMED
3