Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Doles v. Krammes, 95-7734 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7734 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7734 CHESTER JAMES DOLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CALVIN T. KRAMMES, Former 1992 Police Chief, Town of Elkton; TOWN OF ELKTON, VIRGINIA; JAMES CROUSE, Mayor, Town of Elkton; KENNARD MERREY, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commission- er; JESSIE P. BOYD, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; GENE A. BROOMELL, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; CONSTANCE W. DUN- BARR, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner, in thei
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7734 CHESTER JAMES DOLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CALVIN T. KRAMMES, Former 1992 Police Chief, Town of Elkton; TOWN OF ELKTON, VIRGINIA; JAMES CROUSE, Mayor, Town of Elkton; KENNARD MERREY, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commission- er; JESSIE P. BOYD, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; GENE A. BROOMELL, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; CONSTANCE W. DUN- BARR, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner, in their Official and Individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2609-ADM) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester James Doles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 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. Doles v. Krammes, No. CA-95-2609-ADM (D. Md. Sept. 13, 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 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