Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McCoy v. Smith, 97-6721 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6721 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6721 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; THEODORE PURNELL, Security Chief; E. WOOD, Sergeant; CAROL JACK- SON; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS; BERNARD SMITH; PATRICIA GOINS; S. CHESTER, Correc- tional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-92- 952-L) Submitted: Januar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6721 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; THEODORE PURNELL, Security Chief; E. WOOD, Sergeant; CAROL JACK- SON; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS; BERNARD SMITH; PATRICIA GOINS; S. CHESTER, Correc- tional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-92- 952-L) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Toni-Jean Lisa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (1994) 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. McCoy v. Smith, No. CA-92-952-L (D. Md. Apr. 23, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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