Francis Mbewe v. Unknown Names

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6059 FRANCIS C. MBEWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN NAMES, (MCDCR) Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Mail Room Clerks; DAVID, Cpt., Head of Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (MCDCR) Mail Room; RICHARD DOVEY, C.O.S., Chief of Security of MCI-H; RICHARD, C.O. II, former Property Room Officer of MCI-H; WACH, Mr., Case Manager; STEVENUS, Ms., Librarian, MCI-H; MCI-H; MCDCR MAIL ROOM, Defendants - Appellees, and STOUFFER, C.D.C, Head of Correction for the State of Maryland; SOWERS, Warden (former) m MCI-H; WEBB, Warden, MCI-H; SCOTT, MJ, Shift Commander, MCI-H; CLEVENGER, C.O. II, Tier Officer for B2; WILLIAMS, Lt., Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; POWELL, Lt., former Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; VINSON, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; WORGUL, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; HULL, Cpt., Dietary Manager of MCI-H, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:12-cv-03344-AW) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis C. Mbewe, Appellant Pro Se. Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland; Siobhan Kelly Madison, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Francis C. Mbewe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against the Appellees for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mbewe v. Unknown Names, No. 8:12-cv-03344-AW (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2013). 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