Sindram v. Sengel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2004
• Docket: 04-1414
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1414

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. RANDOLPH SENGEL; DIETRA Y. TRENT; MARK R. WARNER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1-A)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, O’CONNELL, O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Michael Sindram appeals the district court’s amended

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Sindram v. Sengal, No. CA-04-1-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 24,

2004). We deny Sindram’s motion for 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 -