Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wright v. Robinson, 97-6662 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6662 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6662 WALTER LEE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, War- den, in his individual and official capacity; GARY HORNBAKER, Assistant Warden, in his indi- vidual and official capacity; JAMES MURPHY, Chief of Security, in his individual and offi- cial capacity; KELVIN FURLOW, Sergeant, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL THOMPSON,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6662 WALTER LEE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, War- den, in his individual and official capacity; GARY HORNBAKER, Assistant Warden, in his indi- vidual and official capacity; JAMES MURPHY, Chief of Security, in his individual and offi- cial capacity; KELVIN FURLOW, Sergeant, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL THOMPSON, CO II, in his individual and offi- cial capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2417-AW) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wright v. Robinson, No. CA-96-2417-AW (D. Md. Apr. 1, 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 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