Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richardson v. Kradel, 97-7597 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7597 Visitors: 37
Filed: Mar. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7597 ERIC MAURICE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL F. KRADEL, Chief Psychologist; DOCTOR RAJAU, Psychologist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1543-S) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Af
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7597 ERIC MAURICE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL F. KRADEL, Chief Psychologist; DOCTOR RAJAU, Psychologist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1543-S) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Maurice Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Frederick William Goundry, III, VARNER & KASLICK, Frederick, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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. Richardson v. Kradel, No. CA-97-1543-S (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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