Maurice Cortez Proctor v. City of Baltimore, Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6507
MAURICE CORTEZ PROCTOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; STUART SIMMS,
State’s Attorney for Baltimore City; TIMOTHY
DOORY, Assistant State’s Attorney for Balti-
more City; PATRICIA JESSEMY, State’s Attorney
for Baltimore City; STEPHANIE LANE-WEBER,
State Attorney General for Maryland; J. JOSEPH
CURRAN, JR., Attorney General for Maryland,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
317-L)
Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Cortez Proctor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maurice C. Proctor appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Proctor’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Proctor v. City of Baltimore, MD, No. CA-01-
317-L (D. Md. filed Mar. 6, 2001; entered Mar. 7, 2001). We dis-
pense 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

-- 2 of 2 --