Kesiena Tani v. BRIAN CEDAR, Lieutenant, Maryland State Police

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2004
KESIENA TANI
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN CEDAR, Lieutenant, Maryland State Police; ST. MARY’S
COUNTY; ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; DAVID ZYLAK,
Former St. Mary’s County Sheriff; CALVERT COUNTY; CALVERT
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MIKE EVANS, Calvert County
Sheriff; MIKE A. JONES, Deputy, Badge #3958, Calvert County;
RICKEY COX, Deputy, Badge #4064, St. Mary’s County; SCOTT M.
BROWN, Deputy, Badge #4073, Calvert County; KEITH D. MORITZ,
Deputy, Badge #0157, St. Mary’s County; STEVE JONES, Trooper
1st Class, Badge #9752, Maryland State Police; RICKY THOMAS,
1st Sergeant, Badge #0422, Calvert County; JOHN J. KIRKNER,
Deputy 1st Class, Badge #0133, St. Mary’s County; CHRIS M.
SLOAN, Deputy 1st Class, Badge #6865, Calvert County; JASON
ELLIOTT, Deputy 1st Class, Badge #3236, Calvert County; TODD
L. FLEENOR, Deputy 1st Class, Badge #0145, St. Mary’s
County; MIKE P. NAECKER, Deputy 1st Class, Badge #3207,
Calvert County; JOHN D. HORNE, Deputy 1st Class, Badge
#0021, St. Mary’s County; JOHN R. SHOEMAKER, Deputy 1st
Class, Badge #0041, St. Mary’s County; PHILIP JOSEPH,
Sergeant, Badge #0056, St. Mary’s County,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-01924-CCB)
Submitted: July 28, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009

-- 1 of 3 --

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kesiena Tani, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, Assistant
Attorney General, Donald Eugene Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland; Daniel Karp,
KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; John
Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Kesiena Tani appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing 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. Tani v.
Cedar, No. 1:07-cv-01924-CCB (D. Md. March 31, 2008 & Aug. 8,
2008) 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 of 3 --