Steve Chadwick v. Richard Graham, Jr., No. 19-6870 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 27, 2019.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6870 STEVE C. CHADWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00596-RDB) Submitted: June 30, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steve Carl Chadwick appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chadwick v. Graham, No. 1:19-cv-00596-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2019). We deny Chadwick’s motions to appoint counsel, for leave to file an amended complaint, and for default judgment. 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 * Although the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 2020). 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.
