Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Tanner, 00-6261 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6261 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6261 NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. TANNER, Lieutenant, C.O., IV; KEVIN K. SMITH, Captain; CHARLES SMITH, Officer, C.O., II; SHANOLIA GAITHER, Ms., and Each above Maryland State Division of Correction Officer is sued in his Official capacity & individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ben
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6261 NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. TANNER, Lieutenant, C.O., IV; KEVIN K. SMITH, Captain; CHARLES SMITH, Officer, C.O., II; SHANOLIA GAITHER, Ms., and Each above Maryland State Division of Correction Officer is sued in his Official capacity & individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 688-L) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nicholas Warner Jones appeals the district court order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and denying his request for leave to amend his complaint, and a subse- quent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Tanner, No. CA-99-688-L (D. Md. Feb. 8 & Mar. 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer