Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cooper v. Johnson, 07-6133 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6133 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6133 ROBERT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DWIGHT JOHNSON; REDDICK LANE; ERIC JEFFERSON; TIMOTHY BULLOCK; ASHLEY RILEY; ALI CROSLAND; RONALD ORANGE; LEHRMAN W. DOTSON; CHERELLE REDDICK-LANE, Doctor; BARBARA PENDLETON; YEMISI ADESOMO; LIEUTENANT PITTMAN, 3x11 Female MCAC; D. ALEXANDER, C.O., 3x11 Male MCAC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6133 ROBERT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DWIGHT JOHNSON; REDDICK LANE; ERIC JEFFERSON; TIMOTHY BULLOCK; ASHLEY RILEY; ALI CROSLAND; RONALD ORANGE; LEHRMAN W. DOTSON; CHERELLE REDDICK-LANE, Doctor; BARBARA PENDLETON; YEMISI ADESOMO; LIEUTENANT PITTMAN, 3x11 Female MCAC; D. ALEXANDER, C.O., 3x11 Male MCAC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv- 00287-AMD, 01:06-cv-00807-AMD) Submitted: August 24, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Robert Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Cooper appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cooper v. Johnson, Nos. 1:06-cv-00287-AMD; 1:06-cv-00807-AMD (D. Md. filed Jan. 19, 2007; entered Jan. 22, 2007). 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