Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mills v. Corcoran, 05-6684 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6684 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6684 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; JAMES SMITH, Security Chief; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; KAREN GARDNER; TOMEKA SALLY; THERESA WILLIAMS; FRANCINE DAVIS, Officer; OFFICER STIELPER; STUART SIMMS, Secretary; GEORGE BROSAN, Deputy Secretary; DOUGLAS CLOMAN, Major; WILLIAM SONDERVAN; FRANK SIZER; JACK KAVANAGH, Department of Safety; BRENDA BERTRAM, Lieutenant; CINDY KOMENDA, Sergeant, D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6684 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; JAMES SMITH, Security Chief; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; KAREN GARDNER; TOMEKA SALLY; THERESA WILLIAMS; FRANCINE DAVIS, Officer; OFFICER STIELPER; STUART SIMMS, Secretary; GEORGE BROSAN, Deputy Secretary; DOUGLAS CLOMAN, Major; WILLIAM SONDERVAN; FRANK SIZER; JACK KAVANAGH, Department of Safety; BRENDA BERTRAM, Lieutenant; CINDY KOMENDA, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-02-2484-DKC) Submitted: November 2, 2005 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mills v. Corcoran, No. CA-02-2484-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2005). 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 - 3 -
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