Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anthony Kelly v. Frank Bishop, Jr., 17-6868 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-6868 Visitors: 46
Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6868 ANTHONY QUENTIN KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; SERGEANT CHARLES B. BIELANSKI; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KATHY F. TROUTMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JERRY L. GIBBNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THOMAS J. RYAN; STATE OF MARYLAND; JOHN DOE #1, Plumbing Worker; JOHN DOE #2, Plumbing Worker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richa
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6868 ANTHONY QUENTIN KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; SERGEANT CHARLES B. BIELANSKI; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KATHY F. TROUTMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JERRY L. GIBBNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THOMAS J. RYAN; STATE OF MARYLAND; JOHN DOE #1, Plumbing Worker; JOHN DOE #2, Plumbing Worker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03668-RDB) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Quentin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying Kelly’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelly v. Bishop, No. 1:16-cv-03668-RDB (D. Md. June 9 & 27, 2017). 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