Filed: Feb. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6392 EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN GREEN; MICHAEL KING; BRIAN ROMINES; ZOCK, Sergeant; WESTBROOK, Officer; RAGINS, Officer; GARRISEY, Officer; BARNES, Lieutenant; JOHNSON, Lieutenant; WALTER HOLMES, Captain; UNIDENTIFIED BLACK OFFICER; FIVE UNKNOWN OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees, and WARDEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deb
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6392 EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN GREEN; MICHAEL KING; BRIAN ROMINES; ZOCK, Sergeant; WESTBROOK, Officer; RAGINS, Officer; GARRISEY, Officer; BARNES, Lieutenant; JOHNSON, Lieutenant; WALTER HOLMES, Captain; UNIDENTIFIED BLACK OFFICER; FIVE UNKNOWN OFFICERS, Defendants - Appellees, and WARDEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Debo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6392
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN GREEN; MICHAEL KING; BRIAN ROMINES; ZOCK, Sergeant;
WESTBROOK, Officer; RAGINS, Officer; GARRISEY, Officer;
BARNES, Lieutenant; JOHNSON, Lieutenant; WALTER HOLMES,
Captain; UNIDENTIFIED BLACK OFFICER; FIVE UNKNOWN OFFICERS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WARDEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cv-01027-DKC)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie
Gatewood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Sewell v. Green, No. 8:08-cv-01027-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 16,
2010). We deny Sewell’s motion to appoint counsel. * 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
*
Sewell has filed a document entitled “Motion of Issues on
Appeal of the Lower Courts [sic] Judgment” that appears to be
his brief on appeal. We deny the motion.
3