Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hall v. Kavanagh, 99-6343 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6343 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6343 WALTER EDWARD HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TYRUNNELL HALL; DWAYNE DOUCETT, Plaintiffs, versus JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Former Secretary; STUART O. SIMMS, Present Secretary; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commission- er; JAMES PEGUESE, Chief; CHARLES GRAHAM, Cap- tain; GREGORY MADDOX, Lieutenant; E. BROWN, Lieutenant; CHARLES KIMBROW, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6343 WALTER EDWARD HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TYRUNNELL HALL; DWAYNE DOUCETT, Plaintiffs, versus JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Former Secretary; STUART O. SIMMS, Present Secretary; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commission- er; JAMES PEGUESE, Chief; CHARLES GRAHAM, Cap- tain; GREGORY MADDOX, Lieutenant; E. BROWN, Lieutenant; CHARLES KIMBROW, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-1841-S) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Edward Hall, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At- torney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Walter Edward Hall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Kavanagh, No. CA-98-1841-S (D. Md. Feb. 5, 1999). 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