Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gregory Marshall v. James Tichnell, 12-7076 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7076 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 16, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7076 GREGORY MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. JAMES TICHNELL, Case Management Manager WCI; PETERS, Detective, Sergeant, Crimes Unit Investigator, Internal Investigation Unit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-cv-01518-RWT) Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: January 16, 2013 Before KING, FLOYD, and TH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7076 GREGORY MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. JAMES TICHNELL, Case Management Manager WCI; PETERS, Detective, Sergeant, Crimes Unit Investigator, Internal Investigation Unit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-cv-01518-RWT) Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: January 16, 2013 Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Marshall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Marshall v. Tichnell, No. 8:12-cv-01518-RWT (D. Md. May 31, 2012). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act without prepayment of fees, for leave to file lengthy brief, and for emergency declaration for entry of default judgment. 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. DISMISSED 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