Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mitchell v. Williams, 98-6291 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6291 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6291 WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. WILLIAMS, Sergeant; CAPTAIN RUZICKA; ALTON BARR, Officer; D. BROWN, Officer; HOWARD BARKSDALE, Officer; D. DEMBY, Sergeant; DELAN- VIEL EVANS, Sergeant; OFFICER KNIGHT; E. NWOJI, Officer; R W. MANNING, Officer; DEREK WHEELER, Officer; D. JOHNSON, Officer; OFFICER TOWNSEND; EUGENE BURNS, Sergeant; OFFICER MCMILLIAN, Property; W. TAYLOR, Officer, COII, Defendants - Appel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6291 WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. WILLIAMS, Sergeant; CAPTAIN RUZICKA; ALTON BARR, Officer; D. BROWN, Officer; HOWARD BARKSDALE, Officer; D. DEMBY, Sergeant; DELAN- VIEL EVANS, Sergeant; OFFICER KNIGHT; E. NWOJI, Officer; R W. MANNING, Officer; DEREK WHEELER, Officer; D. JOHNSON, Officer; OFFICER TOWNSEND; EUGENE BURNS, Sergeant; OFFICER MCMILLIAN, Property; W. TAYLOR, Officer, COII, Defendants - Appellees, and B. TAYLOR, Officer in their personal and pro- fessional capacity, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1915-L) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 1983 (1994) complaint and order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Williams, No. CA-97-1915-L (D. Md. Dec. 24, 1997; Feb. 18, 1998). 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