Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-6510 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6510 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 29, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 822 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Aaron HOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William SMITH; Reaheon Getachew; Unknown Psychiatrist; Roy Clymer; El-Beshir; Pappas; Claudette Michel; Michelle Martin; Archlie Gee; Richard Plies, All sued individually and in their offi
More

60 F.3d 822
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Aaron HOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William SMITH; Reaheon Getachew; Unknown Psychiatrist;
Roy Clymer; El-Beshir; Pappas; Claudette Michel;
Michelle Martin; Archlie Gee; Richard Plies, All sued
individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees,
and
LIBERSTEIN; DOCTOR PIKE; Mamichell Cordett; Richard
Place, Defendants.

No. 95-6510.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 29, 1995.

Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; Philip Melton Andrews, Geoffrey Hawthorne Genth, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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. 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. Holsey v. Smith, No. CA-92-2630-K (D. Md. Mar. 16, 1995). 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