Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sowell v. Waters, 96-6437 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6437 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6437 SCOTT SOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS; RICHARD A. LANHAM; P. RAFFERTY; UNKNOWN HOUSING OFFICER; CAPTAIN SCOTT; CHARLES POTTS, M.D., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-3590-JFM) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6437 SCOTT SOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS; RICHARD A. LANHAM; P. RAFFERTY; UNKNOWN HOUSING OFFICER; CAPTAIN SCOTT; CHARLES POTTS, M.D., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-3590-JFM) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Sowell, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Roy Leonard Mason, Deborah Maude Peyton, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Sowell v. Waters, No. CA-94-3590-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 5, 1996). 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
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