Filed: Sep. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6824 MICHAEL STEVEN SAYKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ALAN D. EASON; MARLENE LOUGAR; J. HEMLER; KATHY GRANT; STACE DONOHOO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1055-AW) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6824 MICHAEL STEVEN SAYKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ALAN D. EASON; MARLENE LOUGAR; J. HEMLER; KATHY GRANT; STACE DONOHOO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1055-AW) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MIC..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6824 MICHAEL STEVEN SAYKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ALAN D. EASON; MARLENE LOUGAR; J. HEMLER; KATHY GRANT; STACE DONOHOO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1055-AW) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Steven Sayko, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Sayko v. Lanham, No. CA-96-1055-AW (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
