Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Howard Hines v. J. Revell, Captain Unknown Shift Commander Unknown Respondeat Superior Eugene Nuth, 95-7669 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7669 Visitors: 32
Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 81 F.3d 149 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Howard HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. REVELL, Captain; Unknown Shift Commander; Unknown Respondeat Superior; Eugene Nuth, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-7669. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: March 2
More

81 F.3d 149

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Howard HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. REVELL, Captain; Unknown Shift Commander; Unknown
Respondeat Superior; Eugene Nuth, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7669.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-94-2637-MJG)

Howard Hines, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 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. Hines v. Revell, No. CA-94-2637-MJG (D.Md. Sept. 25, 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.

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