Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6131 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; LEWIS STEWART, Warden; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; DARRYL PUGH, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 474-AMD) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6131 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; LEWIS STEWART, Warden; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; DARRYL PUGH, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 474-AMD) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6131 SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; LEWIS STEWART, Warden; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; DARRYL PUGH, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 474-AMD) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scotland E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Scotland E. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. See Williams v. Kavanaugh, No. CA-01-474-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2001). 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