Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Woods v. Lanham, 98-7155 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7155 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7155 CHARLES ROBIN WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Cor- rection; FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; MARK BRADSHAW, Captain; T. PERRY, Correctional Officer; TIMMY DEAL, Major; JEFFREY JOHNSON, Correctional Officer; RONALD STOTLER, Correctional Officer; COLIN DETRICK, Correctional Officer; DENNIS HICKEY, Sergeant; FREDERICK PRITTS, Correc- tional Officer; ROBERT TICHNELL, Captain; RUSSELL ZANG,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7155 CHARLES ROBIN WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Cor- rection; FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; MARK BRADSHAW, Captain; T. PERRY, Correctional Officer; TIMMY DEAL, Major; JEFFREY JOHNSON, Correctional Officer; RONALD STOTLER, Correctional Officer; COLIN DETRICK, Correctional Officer; DENNIS HICKEY, Sergeant; FREDERICK PRITTS, Correc- tional Officer; ROBERT TICHNELL, Captain; RUSSELL ZANG, Correctional Officer; P. WILSON, Correctional Officer; JAMES H. ASHBY, Hearing Officer; BRYAN ZILER, Defendants - Appellees, and L. MILLER, Correctional Officer, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 97-4019-CCB) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robin Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Robin Woods appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. Woods v. Lanham, No. CA-97-4019-CCB (D. Md. July 23, 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
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