Holsey v. Schaefer
Holsey v. Schaefer
Opinion
1 F.3d 1233
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Aaron HOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William D. SCHAEFER, Individually, and as Governor of the
State of Maryland; Elmanus Herndon, Individually, and as
Commissioner of Correction; Kenneth Taylor, Individually,
and as Warden of the House of Correction; William L. Smith,
Individually, and as Assistant Warden of Maryland House of
Correction; Richard Singletary, Individually, and as 4-12
Shift Major at the House of Correction; Charlene Ratcliff,
Individually, and as Administrative Remedy Coordinator of
the House of Correction; Liz Nick, Individually and as
Mailroom Supervisor at House of Correction; Rudeine
Dimissie, Individually, and as Dietary Department
Administrator at the House of Correction; B. A. Skinner,
Individually and as Classification Counselor at the House of
Correction; Cross, Individually, and as a Prison Guard at
the House of Correction; Lawson, Individually, and as a
Prison Guard at the House of Correction; Myers,
Individually, and as a Sergeant on the 4-12 Shift at the
House of Correction in Jessup, Maryland; Smith,
Individually, and as a Prison Guard at the House of
Correction on the 8-4 Shift (A. CO. II); Hollis S.
Thompson, Individually, and as Chief of Security at House of
Correction, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-6458.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 1993.
Decided: August 4, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-2010-K)
Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Audrey J. S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
D.Md.
AFFIRMED.
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Aaron Holsey appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holsey v. Schaefer, No. CA-90-2010-K (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1993). 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.
AFFIRMED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.