Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-6492 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6492 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 26, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 131 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Eric SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Mason WATERS, Warden; William S. Calandrelle, Mark W. Cowan; Kenneth E. Koontz; Ronald E. Hardy; Norman Schetrompf; Timothy A. Keeney; Terry L. Verdier; Stanley E. Jordan; David L. Kretzer; Russe
More

30 F.3d 131

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Eric SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Mason WATERS, Warden; William S. Calandrelle, Mark W.
Cowan; Kenneth E. Koontz; Ronald E. Hardy; Norman
Schetrompf; Timothy A. Keeney; Terry L. Verdier; Stanley
E. Jordan; David L. Kretzer; Russell L. Mcintyre,
Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6492.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994
Decided: July 26, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-93-670)

Eric Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Waters, No. CA-93-670 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1994). 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.

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