Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Holley v. Smith, 97-6249 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6249 Visitors: 40
Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6249 FRANCIS RUSSELL HOLLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL SMITH, R.N.; BERNADETTE MORGAN, Lieu- tenant; PRISONER HEALTH SERVICE SYSTEM, INCOR- PORATED; VALARIE BRISCO, P.A.; FRANK PARIS, P.A.; LEE R. CARTER, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees, and DAVID KALICK; NEWTON KENDING, Dr.; EUGENE NUTH, Warden; MARYLAND STATE PENITENTIARY HOSPITAL; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CAROL ANN JACKSON; E. SAMUEL, Correctional O
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6249 FRANCIS RUSSELL HOLLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL SMITH, R.N.; BERNADETTE MORGAN, Lieu- tenant; PRISONER HEALTH SERVICE SYSTEM, INCOR- PORATED; VALARIE BRISCO, P.A.; FRANK PARIS, P.A.; LEE R. CARTER, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees, and DAVID KALICK; NEWTON KENDING, Dr.; EUGENE NUTH, Warden; MARYLAND STATE PENITENTIARY HOSPITAL; BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CAROL ANN JACKSON; E. SAMUEL, Correctional Officer II, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1779-HAR) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Russell Holley, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Douglas Conrad Meister, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, P.A., Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holley v. Smith, No. CA-96-1779-HAR (D. Md. Jan. 3 & 9, 1997). We deny Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely because Appel- lant's notice of appeal was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). 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