Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-7234 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7234 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 14, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 73 F.3d 358 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Winston LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas CORCORAN, Warden, Individually and in his official capacity as the Warden of Maryland Correctional; John Parker, Individually and in his official capacity; Richard Lanham, Sr., Com
More

73 F.3d 358
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Winston LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas CORCORAN, Warden, Individually and in his official
capacity as the Warden of Maryland Correctional; John
Parker, Individually and in his official capacity; Richard
Lanham, Sr., Commissioner, Individually and in his official
capacity; Shawn Jackson; Russell W. Selig; Ernest L.
Elliott; Curtis D. Kime; James Moore; Michael Reichert;
John M. Price; Franklin D. Wood, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 14, 1995.

Winston Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Audrey J.S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) 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. Lloyd v. Corcoran, No. CA-94-227-B (D.Md. Oct. 13, 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.

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