Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Douglas v. Sylvester, 96-6519 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6519 Visitors: 39
Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6519 ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRAHAM SYLVESTER, Officer; BRIAN BACON, Of- ficer; ELFRAM BOWIE, Officer; CARL TROGDON, Officer; MICHAEL VAUGH, Officer; JESSE KNIGHT, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLES DAWKINS, Officer, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-940-K) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6519 ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRAHAM SYLVESTER, Officer; BRIAN BACON, Of- ficer; ELFRAM BOWIE, Officer; CARL TROGDON, Officer; MICHAEL VAUGH, Officer; JESSE KNIGHT, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLES DAWKINS, Officer, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-940-K) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellis Richard Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles Verderaime, VERDERAIME & DUBOIS, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant Ellis Douglas appeals the jury's verdict for the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) civil action. Douglas, who brought this suit alleging excessive force by several police officers when they arrested him, urges overturning the jury's ver- dict because he alleges that the police officers committed perjury during the trial. We have reviewed the record and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm the jury's verdict. Additionally, we deny Douglas's motion to appoint counsel. 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
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