Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

91-6634 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6634 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 28, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 953 F.2d 637 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Kenneth R. ANNACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ROLLINS, Warden of the Maryland State Penitentiary; Bernard Smith, Assistant Warden of the Maryland State Penitentiary; Chief Sanders, Chief of Security of the Maryland State Penite
More

953 F.2d 637

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Kenneth R. ANNACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James ROLLINS, Warden of the Maryland State Penitentiary;
Bernard Smith, Assistant Warden of the Maryland State
Penitentiary; Chief Sanders, Chief of Security of the
Maryland State Penitentiary; Major Jednorski; Captain
White; H.E. Rogers; Patricia Goins; Mr. Stritch; Richard
Lanham, Sr., Commissioner of the Department of Correction;
Bishop Robinson, Secretary; William Donald Schaefer,
Governor, Classification Department of the Maryland State
Penitentiary, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6634.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 27, 1991.
Decided Jan. 28, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge. (CA-91-518-R)

Kenneth R. Annack, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Kenneth R. Annack appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Annack v. Rollins, No. CA-91-518-R (D.Md. July 3, 1991; Aug. 2, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

We deny Annack's Motion to Strike a supplement to the record on appeal because the supplement he complains of was not forwarded to this Court. We also deny his Motion to Deny the Appellee's Untimely Filing of a Brief because the Appellees did not file a brief in this Court

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