Marc Cason, Sr. v. Richard Weeks, No. 08-6839 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6839 MARC S. CASON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD WEEKS; ROBERT CORRECTIONS; E.M.S.A., THOMAS; MARYLAND DIVISION OF Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00946-CCB) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc S. Cason, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc S. Cason, Sr., appeals the district court s order dismissing 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. No. 1:08-cv-00946-CCB (D. Md. May 7, 2008). court s dismissal was Cason s third See Cason v. Weeks, Because the district strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000) ( PLRA ),* Cason may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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 * Although the district court s order indicates that its dismissal constituted Cason s second PLRA strike, a review of Cason s numerous lawsuits reveals that Cason was previously issued two strikes. See Cason v. Maryland Div. of Corr., No. 06-cv-2032 (D. Md. filed Aug. 21, 2006; entered Aug. 22, 2006) (second strike); Cason v. Maryland Div. of Parole and Probation, No. 06-cv1186 (D. Md. May 17, 2006) (first strike). - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.