UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6440
EUGENE DOUGLAS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner;
MAJOR DOUGLAS CLOMAN; INTERNAL INVESTIGATION UNIT; WARDEN
KATHLEEN S. GREEN; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; ASS.
WARDEN VICTORIA BURKHARD; MICHAEL KING, Chief of Security;
CAPTAIN WALTER S. HOLMES; LT. D. BARNES; LT. SHEILA BROWN-
KING; CAPTAIN C. TYLER; J. CHATHAM, Mailroom; SGT. PAUL
ZIOLKOWSKI; OFFICER CHARLES WESTBROOK; LT. B. POLK; SGT.
COPELAND; OFFICER D. CULLOTTA; SGT. GREGORY WARD; OFFICER
COPE; OFFICER M. PARKER; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER CHRISTINA
CARTER; SGT. BALDERSON; OFFICER BROMLEY; CORRECTIONAL
MEDICAL SERVICE; DR. BAHANNA; CMS MEDICAL CONTRACTOR; MARYAM
MESSAFORTH; OFFICER MCGEE; OFFICER STERLING; OFFICER MERRIT;
OFFICER DAVIS; OFFICER GUNTER; OFFICER ASHBY; OFFICER SMITH;
OFFICER WOOTEN; OFFICER TURNER; OFFICER WHITTINGTON; OFFICER
BYRD; NURSE KATHY KILLMAN; NURSE KENYA; NURSE NIXEN; MARY
COOPER; BRIAN BOZEMAN; OFFICER MISTER; OFFICER PERSINGER;
OFFICER HARMON; OFFICER AHALT; OFFICER BAILY,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00255-DKC)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane
Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Douglas, Jr., appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Douglas v. Maynard, No. 8:11-cv-00255-DKC (D. Md. Feb.
9, Feb. 21, 2012). 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