Filed: Sep. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6611 CORNELIUS STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3370-JFM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6611 CORNELIUS STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3370-JFM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6611
CORNELIUS STRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety
and Correctional Services; RICHARD LANHAM,
Commissioner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-3370-JFM)
Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornelius Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bruce Rosenblatt,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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. Strong v. Robinson, No. CA-95-3370-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 29,
1996). 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
2