Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Corcoran, 99-6747 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6747 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6747 NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; DENNIS DUSING; STEPHEN MACK; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; LINWOOD PERKINS, Captain; SERGEANT BELT, Commanding Officer, III; E. SINGH, Commanding Officer, II; LIEUTENANT HICKS; OFFICER YELITIN, Com- manding Officer, II; OFFICER REECE, Commanding Officer, II; SERGEANT ROBINSON; OFFICER WHITT, Commanding Officer, II, Defendant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6747 NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; DENNIS DUSING; STEPHEN MACK; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; LINWOOD PERKINS, Captain; SERGEANT BELT, Commanding Officer, III; E. SINGH, Commanding Officer, II; LIEUTENANT HICKS; OFFICER YELITIN, Com- manding Officer, II; OFFICER REECE, Commanding Officer, II; SERGEANT ROBINSON; OFFICER WHITT, Commanding Officer, II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 2468) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Michelle Eaves, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nicholas Warner Jones appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Jones v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-2468 (D. Md. May 24, 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
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