Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

94-6181 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6181 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 20, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 23 F.3d 400 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Tyrone Keith DAVIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Sewall SMITH, Warden; William D. Filbert, Jr., Warden; Theodore Purnell, Security Chief, Defendants Appellees, and D. Briddell; Kevin Richardson; F. Sargeant; Major Reichlyn, Defendants.
More

23 F.3d 400
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Tyrone Keith DAVIS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Sewall SMITH, Warden; William D. Filbert, Jr., Warden;
Theodore Purnell, Security Chief, Defendants Appellees,
and
D. Briddell; Kevin Richardson; F. Sargeant; Major
Reichlyn, Defendants.

No. 94-6181.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 20, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CA-93-1801-HAR).

Tyrone Keith Davis, appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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.* Davis v. Smith, No. CA-93-1801-HAR (D. Md. Jan. 28, 1994). 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.

*

We deny Davis's motion for 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