¶1Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
¶2Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
¶3Michael Chew appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chew’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chew v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D.Md. Sept. 2, 2014). 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.
¶4AFFIRMED.