Filed: Sep. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6804 KADIM ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, as an individual and in his official capacity as The Commissioner of Corrections, Address Unknown; LLOYD L. WATERS, as an individual and in his official capacity as Warden of Maryland Correctional Institu- tion-Hagerstown; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, as an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6804 KADIM ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, as an individual and in his official capacity as The Commissioner of Corrections, Address Unknown; LLOYD L. WATERS, as an individual and in his official capacity as Warden of Maryland Correctional Institu- tion-Hagerstown; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, as an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6804 KADIM ALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, as an individual and in his official capacity as The Commissioner of Corrections, Address Unknown; LLOYD L. WATERS, as an individual and in his official capacity as Warden of Maryland Correctional Institu- tion-Hagerstown; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, as an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-1035-WMN) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kadim Ali, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 claim for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ali v. Lanham, No. CA-98-1035-WMN (May 5, 1998). 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