Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

89-2659 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-2659 Visitors: 39
Filed: Nov. 08, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 889 F.2d 1084 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Gerson U. KANDJII, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert TOBASH, Sgt., individually, and in his official capacity, Anthony Cuculis, individually, and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and James Helm
More

889 F.2d 1084
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Gerson U. KANDJII, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert TOBASH, Sgt., individually, and in his official
capacity, Anthony Cuculis, individually, and in
his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees,
and
James Helmcamp, Lt., in his official capacity; William
Gossard, in his official capacity as Assistant Warden of the
Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center
and; Joseph Wilson, in his official capacity as Chief of
Security at the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and
Classification Center and; Lewis Ryan, in his official
capacity as Classification Counselor at the Maryland
Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center and, Marvin
N. Robbins, in his official capacity as Executive Director
of the Inmate Grievance Commission; Merry Coplin, in her
official capacity as Warden of the Maryland Reception,
Diagnostic, and Classification Center, Defendants.
Gerson U. KANDJII, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Robert TOBASH, Sgt., individually, and in his official
capacity, Anthony Cuculis, individually, and in
his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees,
and
James Helmcamp, Lt., individually, and in his official
capacity, William Gossard, in his official capacity as
Assistant Warden of the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and
Classification Center and, Joseph Wilson, in his official
capacity as Chief of Security at the Maryland Reception,
Diagnostic, and Classification Center and, Lewis Ryan, in
his official capacity as Classification Counselor at the
Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center
and, Marvin Robbins, in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the Inmate Grievance Commission, Merry Coplin,
in her official capacity as Warden of the Maryland
Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center, Defendants.

Nos. 88-2950, 89-2659.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 1989.
Decided Nov. 8, 1989.

Gerson U. Kandjii, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ronald Mark Levitan, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for appellees.

Before K.K. HALL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

In No. 88-2950, Gerson U. Kandjii appeals from the magistrate's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3). Our review of the record and the magistrate's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate. Kandjii v. Tobash, C/A No. 85-4007-S (D.Md. Oct. 7, 1988).

2

In No. 89-2659, Gerson U. Kandjii appeals from the magistrate's order awarding attorney's fees to defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. Our review of the record and the magistrate's opinion discloses that there was no abuse of discretion and this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate. Kandjii v. Tobash, C/A No. 85-4007-S (D.Md. Feb. 10, 1989).

3

The contentions raised by Kandjii in his "motion to submit new documents" do not affect the Court's disposition of this appeal. Kandjii's motions for appointment of counsel and for transfer to the Second Circuit are denied. 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.

4

AFFIRMED.

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