Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-2842 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2842 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 86 F.3d 1149 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles C. ESTELLE, Jr.; Charles C. Estelle, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND; Clarence Edwards, Police Chief, County of Montgomery; Stephen Decarlo, Officer; Other Unknown Officers of the Montgom
More

86 F.3d 1149

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles C. ESTELLE, Jr.; Charles C. Estelle, Sr.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND; Clarence Edwards, Police
Chief, County of Montgomery; Stephen Decarlo, Officer;
Other Unknown Officers of the Montgomery County Police
Department, Defendants-Appellees,
and
State of Maryland; Andrew L. Sonner; Alexander Foster;
Patrick Bates; Good Counsel High School, Xavieran
Brothers; Michael Murphy, President, Defendants.

No. 95-2842.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 1996.
Decided May 28, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2648-AW, CA-94-3241-AW)

Charles C. Estelle, Jr., and Charles C. Estelle, Sr., Appellants Pro Se. James Louis Parsons, Jr., COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 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. Estelle v. County of Montgomery, Nos. CA-94-2648-AW; CA-94-3241-AW (D. Md. Sept. 19 & Oct. 4, 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.

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