Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Neal v. Smith, 94-7408 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7408 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7408 SAMUEL GRACE NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERNARD SMITH, Acting Warden; MAJOR JEDNORSKI; R. WHITE, Captain; LIEUTENANT MCGOWAN; LIEU- TENANT JOHNSON; SGT. BRUCE; CO MINOR; CAROL JACKSON; CO SHEARN, Remedy Coordinator Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-1913-HAR) Submitted: Oc
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7408 SAMUEL GRACE NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERNARD SMITH, Acting Warden; MAJOR JEDNORSKI; R. WHITE, Captain; LIEUTENANT MCGOWAN; LIEU- TENANT JOHNSON; SGT. BRUCE; CO MINOR; CAROL JACKSON; CO SHEARN, Remedy Coordinator Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-1913-HAR) Submitted: October 31, 1995 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, HALL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Grace Neal, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court awarded summary judgment as to some claims and Defendants and conducted a jury trial as to the remaining claims and Defendants. At the close of the evidence, the court granted Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law. With regard to the award of summary judgment, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Our de novo review of the trial transcript similarly discloses no error in the decision to grant the Rule 50(a) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
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