Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Copeland v. Lanham, 97-6648 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6648 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6648 TERRY WENDELL COPELAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner, Division of Correction; PERIERA, Ms., for R. A. L. (Acting Commissioner); L. SATTLER, for J. C. Headquarters Coordinator Division of Correc- tion; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; WAYNE HILL, Mr., Administrative Remedy Coordinator; SERGEANT HOLLAND; SESSONS, CO, I; CHUCK SMITH, CO, II; G. ALLEN; CO BOWERS,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6648 TERRY WENDELL COPELAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Commissioner, Division of Correction; PERIERA, Ms., for R. A. L. (Acting Commissioner); L. SATTLER, for J. C. Headquarters Coordinator Division of Correc- tion; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; WAYNE HILL, Mr., Administrative Remedy Coordinator; SERGEANT HOLLAND; SESSONS, CO, I; CHUCK SMITH, CO, II; G. ALLEN; CO BOWERS, I; L. SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 3567-AMD) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Wendell Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Terry Wendell Copeland 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 on the reasoning of the district court. Copeland v. Lanham, No. CA-95-3567-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 8, 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