Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6150 JOHNNY DEAN POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN HARRIS; STATE OF MARYLAND PUBLIC DE- FENDERS OFFICE; STATE OF MARYLAND PROSECUTORS OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 95-3377-DKC) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6150 JOHNNY DEAN POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN HARRIS; STATE OF MARYLAND PUBLIC DE- FENDERS OFFICE; STATE OF MARYLAND PROSECUTORS OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 95-3377-DKC) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Af..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6150
JOHNNY DEAN POWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN HARRIS; STATE OF MARYLAND PUBLIC DE-
FENDERS OFFICE; STATE OF MARYLAND PROSECUTORS
OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
95-3377-DKC)
Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Dean Powell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
district court. Powell v. Harris, No. CA-95-3377-DKC (D. Md. Dec.
21, 1995). To the extent that Appellant's claim against the Mary-
land Public Defender's Office was intended as a damage action
rather than a habeas action, we note that public defenders are not
considered state actors for § 1983 purposes; thus, no award of
damages would have been proper. Polk County v. Dodson,
454 U.S. 312
(1981). 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
2