Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7598 WINSTON LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-943-PJM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7598 WINSTON LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-943-PJM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7598 WINSTON LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-943-PJM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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. Lloyd v. Robinson, No. CA-95-943-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 18, 1995). 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
