Tani v. Cedar

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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