Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marshall v. Commissioner of Corr, 95-8548 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8548 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8548 GREGORY MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; G. NUTH, Warden; T. PURNELL, Chief of Security; KAREN WOULDRIDGE, Case Worker; MAJOR FORD; CAPTAIN WOULDRIDGE, JR.; M. ANDERSON, Correctional Officer I; C. A. JACKSON, Remedy Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr.,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8548 GREGORY MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; G. NUTH, Warden; T. PURNELL, Chief of Security; KAREN WOULDRIDGE, Case Worker; MAJOR FORD; CAPTAIN WOULDRIDGE, JR.; M. ANDERSON, Correctional Officer I; C. A. JACKSON, Remedy Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-334-B) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Commissioner of Correction, No. CA-95-334-B (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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