Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jeffrey Young-Bey v. A. Logston, 12-7182 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7182 Visitors: 43
Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7182 JEFFREY M. YOUNG-BEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. A. LOGSTON, CO II; SGT. J. SMITH; C. M. CAMPBELL, Case Manager; B. CASSIDY, Case Mngmt Supv.; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; STATE OF MARYLAND; M. FISHER, CO II; M. EMERICK, CO II; C. PRICE, CO II; A. DURST, CO II; SGT. MCKENNY; C. CAMPBELL; KEITH ARNOLD; M. SNYDER, CO II, Defendants – Appellees, and FRANK B. BISHOP, Security Chief; TWELVE JOHN DOES, Defendants. Appeal from the Un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7182 JEFFREY M. YOUNG-BEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. A. LOGSTON, CO II; SGT. J. SMITH; C. M. CAMPBELL, Case Manager; B. CASSIDY, Case Mngmt Supv.; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; STATE OF MARYLAND; M. FISHER, CO II; M. EMERICK, CO II; C. PRICE, CO II; A. DURST, CO II; SGT. MCKENNY; C. CAMPBELL; KEITH ARNOLD; M. SNYDER, CO II, Defendants – Appellees, and FRANK B. BISHOP, Security Chief; TWELVE JOHN DOES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00536-JFM) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane- Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Maurice Young-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.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. Young-Bey v. Logston, No. 1:11-cv-00536-JFM (D. Md. June 22, 2012). We also deny Young-Bey’s motion to file a supplemental brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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