Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Maryland Division, 02-6475 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6475 Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6475 STEVEN M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-3573) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. St
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6475 STEVEN M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-3573) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven M. Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint and denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 Johnson v. Md. Div. of Corr., No. CA-01-3573 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2002). 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