Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Rankins, A/K/A Abdul S. Muhammad v. Shirley Anderson, Officer Jack Pegriese, Acting Captain, 92-6447 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6447 Visitors: 41
Filed: Jun. 16, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1443 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael RANKINS, a/k/a Abdul S. Muhammad, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley ANDERSON, Officer; Jack Pegriese, Acting Captain, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6447. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 1, 199
More

966 F.2d 1443

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael RANKINS, a/k/a Abdul S. Muhammad, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Shirley ANDERSON, Officer; Jack Pegriese, Acting Captain,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6447.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 16, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-2346-K)

Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se.

Amy Beth Kushner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Michael Rankins appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rankins v. Anderson, No. CA-91-2346-K (D. Md. Apr. 9, 1992). 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

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