Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cohen v. Smith, 94-7349 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7349 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7349 ANTHONY COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; WILLIAM SMITH; UNKNOWN AGENT #1; CASE MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR; GEORGE C. SHANINAW, CCMS II; C. VINCENT, CCMS I; MARION TUTHILL, Vest #25; R. NOTTO, C.O. I, Vest #48, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; Clarence E. Goetz, Chief Magistrate J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7349 ANTHONY COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; WILLIAM SMITH; UNKNOWN AGENT #1; CASE MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR; GEORGE C. SHANINAW, CCMS II; C. VINCENT, CCMS I; MARION TUTHILL, Vest #25; R. NOTTO, C.O. I, Vest #48, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; Clarence E. Goetz, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-1049-WN, CA-93- 3318-WN) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 29, 1996 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Timothy James Paulus, Assistant Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for a new trial.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Cohen v. Smith, Nos. CA-92-1049-WN; CA-93-3318-WN (D. Md. Sept. 30, 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 * The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 636(c) (West 1993). 3
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