Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miles v. Kavanagh, 00-7033 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7033 Visitors: 42
Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7033 WILLIAM HOWARD MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; ERNEST POTEE, Corporal, Correctional Officer II; TERRANCE ESTEP, Corporal, Correctional Officer II; ERIC A. NELSON, Sergeant; LINDA BETHEA, Lieutenant; DENNIS DUSING, Hearing Adjustment Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLES M. KIMBROW, R.N., License No. R048407, M.C.A.C., in their individual capacity, Defendant. Appeal from the United Sta
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7033 WILLIAM HOWARD MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; ERNEST POTEE, Corporal, Correctional Officer II; TERRANCE ESTEP, Corporal, Correctional Officer II; ERIC A. NELSON, Sergeant; LINDA BETHEA, Lieutenant; DENNIS DUSING, Hearing Adjustment Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLES M. KIMBROW, R.N., License No. R048407, M.C.A.C., in their individual capacity, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99- 1084-MJG) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Howard Miles, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Howard Miles appeals the district court’s order deny- ing 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. See Miles v. Kavanagh, No. CA-99-1084-MJG (D. Md. July 7, 2000). We deny Miles’ pending motions to compel, for an injunction, and to reconsider. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials 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