Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Moats, 96-6297 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6297 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6297 TERRY F. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; KEEPER; DR. IBRAHAM, Dentist; RICHARD LANHAM; BISHOP ROBINSON; MARVIN N. ROBBINS; DANIEL SIRBAUGH, Lieu- tenant; SHIRLEY ALDEN; CHARLES POTTS, Dr., Personal individual and official capacities; RONALD VIOLET, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6297 TERRY F. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; KEEPER; DR. IBRAHAM, Dentist; RICHARD LANHAM; BISHOP ROBINSON; MARVIN N. ROBBINS; DANIEL SIRBAUGH, Lieu- tenant; SHIRLEY ALDEN; CHARLES POTTS, Dr., Personal individual and official capacities; RONALD VIOLET, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 690-AMD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland; Roy Leonard Mason, Deborah Maude Peyton, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Johnson v. Moats, No. CA-95-690-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials 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