Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Raheem Rahman v. J. Stouffer, 13-6627 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6627 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 21, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6627 RAHEEM RAHMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; LIEUTENANT DOLLY; SERGEANT WHITACRE; OFFICER HOOVER; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; DR. GREGORY TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-03497-WMN) Submitted: August 7, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6627 RAHEEM RAHMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; LIEUTENANT DOLLY; SERGEANT WHITACRE; OFFICER HOOVER; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; DR. GREGORY TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-03497-WMN) Submitted: August 7, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2013 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raheem Rahman, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy P. Tennis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raheem Rahman appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rahman v. Stouffer, No. 1:11-cv-03497-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013; Apr. 22, 2013). 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 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