Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

89-6622 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-6622 Visitors: 34
Filed: Feb. 07, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 896 F.2d 545 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Edward D. ASHFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin LIGHTFOOT, Director, Montgomery County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; John E. Wright, Director, Montgomery County Detention Center; Patrick N
More

896 F.2d 545
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Edward D. ASHFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Calvin LIGHTFOOT, Director, Montgomery County Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; John E. Wright, Director,
Montgomery County Detention Center; Patrick N. Francis;
John Laukitus; Gale David, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-6622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 17, 1989.
Decided: Feb. 7, 1990.

Edward D. Ashford, appellant pro se.

Linda D. Berk, Clyde H. Sorrell, County Attorney's Office, for appellees.

Before CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Edward D. Ashford appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm* on the reasoning of the district court. Ashford v. Lightfoot, C/A No. 88-2320-N (D.Md. Mar. 21, 1989). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

In light of our disposition, we deny Ashford's motion for the appointment of counsel

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