Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jefferson v. Crowder, 00-6925 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6925 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6925 EDWARD W. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYRONE CROWDER, Lieutenant, 3/11 Shift; ROBERT SANDERS, Sergeant, 3/11 Shift; J. DAVIS; T. CARTER, Sergeant, 3/11 Shift; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COTTIE, 3/11 Shift; DERRICK BROWN, Correctional Officer, 3/11 Shift; LENA KENT, Lieutenant, 3/11 Shift; LIEUTENANT WHITAKER, 11/7 Shift, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Mar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6925 EDWARD W. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYRONE CROWDER, Lieutenant, 3/11 Shift; ROBERT SANDERS, Sergeant, 3/11 Shift; J. DAVIS; T. CARTER, Sergeant, 3/11 Shift; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COTTIE, 3/11 Shift; DERRICK BROWN, Correctional Officer, 3/11 Shift; LENA KENT, Lieutenant, 3/11 Shift; LIEUTENANT WHITAKER, 11/7 Shift, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-2602-JFM) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward W. Jefferson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Edward W. Jefferson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jefferson v. Crowder, No. CA-99-2602-JFM (D. Md. June 12, 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