Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Allen v. Patuxent Institution, 02-6374 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6374 Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6374 ROBERT RAY ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATUXENT INSTITUTION; KEITH L. COE, Correctional Officer II; NURSE KABA; THREE OTHER GUARDS THAT BEAT ME; A. CARLTON, Officer; LINWOOD BETHEA, Officer; CHARLES COOK, Officer; DANIEL MAYBERRY, Officer; KRIPA KASHYAP, Doctor; FERNINAND MASSARI, Doctor; MONA M. MALIK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenb
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6374 ROBERT RAY ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATUXENT INSTITUTION; KEITH L. COE, Correctional Officer II; NURSE KABA; THREE OTHER GUARDS THAT BEAT ME; A. CARLTON, Officer; LINWOOD BETHEA, Officer; CHARLES COOK, Officer; DANIEL MAYBERRY, Officer; KRIPA KASHYAP, Doctor; FERNINAND MASSARI, Doctor; MONA M. MALIK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-3502-PJM) Submitted: September 26, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bernard Tetrault, PRISONER RIGHTS INFORMATION SYSTEM OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald Joseph Crawford, ALDELMAN, SHEFF & SMITH, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Ray Allen appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Allen v. Patuxent Inst., No. CA-00-3502-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 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