Filed: Aug. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6275 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAGH; LIEUTENANT LEWIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2646-S) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: August 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6275 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAGH; LIEUTENANT LEWIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2646-S) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: August 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6275 CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAGH; LIEUTENANT LEWIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2646-S) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: August 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Evans v. Kavanagh, No. CA-98-2646-S (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1999). 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
