U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991

Jaindl v. Galley

Jaindl v. Galley
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 19, 1991
925 F.2d 1456; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16549; 1991 WL 18138 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Jaindl v. Galley

Opinion

925 F.2d 1456
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Herman Joseph JAINDL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jon P. GALLEY, individually and as Warden of Roxbury
Correctional Institute, Ava I. Gift, individually and as
Commitment Supervisor of Roxbury Correctional Institute,
Merry Coplin, individually and as Warden of Maryland
Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center, Cynthia
Simmons, Counselor at Maryland Reception Diagnostic and
Classification, Elmanus Herndon, individually and as Acting
Commissioner of Maryland Department of Corrections, J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., individually and as Maryland Attorney
General, Robert Butterworth, as Florida Attorney General,
Lawson Lamar, individually and as Florida State Attorney,
Ted Marrero, Jr., individually and as Florida State
Attorney, Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit In and
For Orange County, Florida, State of Maryland, State of
Florida, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-7362.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 31, 1990.
Decided Feb. 19, 1991.

Herman Joseph Jaindl, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Herman Joseph Jaindl appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny Jaindl's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jaindl v. Galley, CA-90-1709 (D.Md. July 9, 1990). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.