Leonard Harris v. Nakita Ross

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Leonard Harris v. Nakita Ross

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6433 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6433

LEONARD HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NAKITA ROSS, Parole Agent; CLEVELAND C. FRIDAY, Warden of Jessup Correction Institution; MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; DPSCS; KERRI SMITH, Parole Supervisor, DPSCS; DANIELLE FLYNN, Field Supervisor II, DPSCS; MARTHA L. DANNER, Director of Parole & Probation, DPSCS; DAVID BLUMBERG, Maryland Parole Commission; OFFICER KYLE THOMAS, Elkton Police Department; OFFICER C. SOTO OCASIO, MD Transportation Authority; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY JENNIFER ROAD DETENTION CENTER; RHONDA OSBORN, Detective, Warrant Apprehension Unit; DEMETRIUS E. PAGE, Regional Administrator DPSCS; BRUCE GERBER, Maryland Division Parole and Probation; CORRIE MCCALL, Parole Supervisor, DPSCS; E. DYER, Parole Agent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01983-TDC)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 29, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6433 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Leonard Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6433 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Harris appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment in Harris’ civil rights action filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. Harris v. Ross, No. 1:21-cv-01983-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished