UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6896
JAMES A. HENSON, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BRADLEY A. WILT; WALTER ISER; BRIAN IAMES; T. L. SIRES;
WILLIAM E. MILLER; ROBERT M. FRIEND; DALE SMITH; SGT.
PUFFENBERG; NICOLAS SOLTAS; STEVEN J. MILLER; SHAWN MURRAY;
JESSE L. LAMBERT; P. DEIST; C.O. II ANDERSON; B.E. FANN;
C.O. II SAVILLE; C.O. II GILPEN; JOHN SINDY; MR. HERBOLD;
MR. LITTIER; MRS. HOLWAGER; C.O. II WALTERS; M. SMITH; NP
JANETTE CLARK; RODNEY O. LIKIN; GUARDS JON DOE; RICHARD
MILLER; RICHARD S. RODERICK; WILLIAM S. BOHRER;
SUBORDINATES IN HV #1@ NBCI, (HV #4@WCI); ROBERT M. FRIEND;
FRANK B. BISHOP. JR.; J. PHILIP MORGAN, SR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-03724-RDB; 1:14-cv-03825-RDB; 1:15-cv-00028-RDB)
Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 3, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Henson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Henson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) actions
without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Henson v. Wilt, Nos. 1:14-cv-03724-RDB;
1:14-cv-03825-RDB; 1:15-cv-00028-RDB (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2015). We
deny Henson’s motion to appoint counsel and 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