Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-6825 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6825 Visitors: 31
Filed: Aug. 14, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 64 F.3d 658 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Gregory MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Abdul S. Muhammad; Henry T. Mcarthur; Douglas Chichester; Alvin Jackson-Bey; Michael Headbey; Kevin Gardner; Germaine Bolling; Donald Lomax, Plaintiffs, v. Mr. JOHNSON; Mr. Moss; Lyne
More

64 F.3d 658

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Gregory MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Abdul S. Muhammad; Henry T. Mcarthur; Douglas Chichester;
Alvin Jackson-Bey; Michael Headbey; Kevin
Gardner; Germaine Bolling; Donald
Lomax, Plaintiffs,
v.
Mr. JOHNSON; Mr. Moss; Lynette Mundey, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,
and
John Doe, Director of Prison Health Services, Defendant.

No. 95-6825.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 1995.
Decided Aug. 14, 1995.

Gregory Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, MD, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Marshall v. Johnson, No. CA-93-1876-B (D.Md. Apr. 27, 1995). 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

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