Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Washington v. Bidwell, 96-7819 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7819 Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7819 RAYMOND E. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN BIDWELL; P. J. STEVENS; MS. GREENE; CAPTAIN TYNDALL; LIEUTENANT LEWIS; LIEUTENANT TEMPLE; TILLEY, DHO; LIEUTENANT SLAYTON; ODOM, Correctional Officer; RIFENBERY, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR; COUNSEL- OR STEINQUIST; COUNSELOR GREENE; M. J. BRIGHT; CARTER, Correctional Officer; ROBINSON, Cor- rectional Officer; ALVERADO, Correctional Office
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7819 RAYMOND E. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN BIDWELL; P. J. STEVENS; MS. GREENE; CAPTAIN TYNDALL; LIEUTENANT LEWIS; LIEUTENANT TEMPLE; TILLEY, DHO; LIEUTENANT SLAYTON; ODOM, Correctional Officer; RIFENBERY, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR; COUNSEL- OR STEINQUIST; COUNSELOR GREENE; M. J. BRIGHT; CARTER, Correctional Officer; ROBINSON, Cor- rectional Officer; ALVERADO, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1187-MJG, CA-96-2025-MJG, CA-96-2075-MJG, CA-96-2076-MJG, CA-96- 2304-MJG, CA-96-2494-MJG) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: March 4, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond E. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil actions under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1996), for making false allegations of poverty. 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. Washington v. Bidwell, Nos. CA-96-1187-MJG; CA-96-2025-MJG; CA-96- 2075-MJG; CA-96-2076-MJG; CA-96-2304-MJG; CA-96-2494-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 7, 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