Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Maydak v. Bidwell, 96-7300 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7300 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7300 KEITH MAYDAK; PAUL LEE; PARIS LUNDIS, on be- half of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DENNIS R. BIDWELL, in his capacity as warden of FCI Cumberland and in his personal capac- ity; JANET RENO, in her capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America; KATHLEEN HAWK, in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons and in her personal capacity; BUREAU OF PRISONS;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7300 KEITH MAYDAK; PAUL LEE; PARIS LUNDIS, on be- half of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DENNIS R. BIDWELL, in his capacity as warden of FCI Cumberland and in his personal capac- ity; JANET RENO, in her capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America; KATHLEEN HAWK, in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons and in her personal capacity; BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-2247-Y) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Maydak, Paul Lee, Paris Lundis, Appellants Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants Keith Maydak, Paul Lee, and Paris Lundis appeal the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for summary judg- ment and denying monetary and injunctive relief on their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maydak v. Bidwell, No. CA-95-2247-Y (D. Md. July 17, 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
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