Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas v. Beshears, 97-7598 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7598 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7598 TON JULIUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Dr.; DALE KERSHOW, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-406-JFM) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, an
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 97-7598



TON JULIUS THOMAS,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


EARL BESHEARS, Warden; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION; GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK
ENIOLA, Dr.; DALE KERSHOW, Officer,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-406-JFM)


Submitted:   February 26, 1998            Decided:   March 19, 1998


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ton Julius Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie
Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, P.A., Riverdale,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Thomas v. Beshears, No. CA-97-406-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1997).
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