Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-6578 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6578 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jun. 30, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 824 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Darnell ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CECIL COUNTY; Kennedy, Sheriff of Cecil County; Lough, Chief; Jeffery Clewer, Director of Corrections; Administration Of CECIL COUNTY; Francis X. Equale,
More

60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Robert Darnell ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CECIL COUNTY; Kennedy, Sheriff of
Cecil County; Lough, Chief; Jeffery Clewer, Director of
Corrections; Administration Of CECIL COUNTY; Francis X.
Equale, Deputy; Brown, Corporal, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6578.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 1995
Decided: June 30, 1995

Robert Darnell Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, Allen, Johnson, Alexander & Karp, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and HAMILTON, 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. Because there are no complex or substantial issues presented in this appeal, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Roberts v. County Commissioners, No. CA-93-273-S (D. Md. Apr. 6, 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