Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6479 WARREN REGINALD STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Correc- tion; THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.-Jessup, M.H.C.-Annex, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 803-MJG) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6479 WARREN REGINALD STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Correc- tion; THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.-Jessup, M.H.C.-Annex, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 803-MJG) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6479 WARREN REGINALD STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Correc- tion; THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.-Jessup, M.H.C.-Annex, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 803-MJG) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Reginald Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Stevenson v. Lanham, No. CA-97- 803-MJG (D. Md. Mar. 26, 1997). 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. DISMISSED 2
