Filed: Oct. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6651 WARREN FLETCHER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4088-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6651 WARREN FLETCHER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4088-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6651 WARREN FLETCHER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4088-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Fletcher-El, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fletcher-El v. Lanham, No. CA-98-4088-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
