Gantt v. Smith

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE W. GANTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

SEWALL SMITH, Warden; ASSISTANT

WARDEN WILSON; LIEUTENANT

GRANT; LIEUTENANT AULU; SERGEANT

LITTLE; SERGEANT CUNNINGHAM; JAKE

SUTTON; SERGEANT COCOLOUGH;

SERGEANT STATEN; SERGEANT

PRESSBURY; BOGGS; M. ROBINSON;

EMMANUAL NZEADIGHIBE,

Defendants-Appellees, and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

No. 94-7303 WALTER E. BLACK, JR.; JOSEPH HAAS;

CLARA GOULD; KIM BERGER,

Attorney, In their official and individual capacities; RICHARD

LANHAM, SR., Senior Commissioner;

PURNELL, Chief of Security,

Individually and in their official capacities; CAPTAIN PORGUESE;

CAPTAIN LEE; BIG STEWART; LITTLE

STEWART; PAUL KNIGHT; ANDREWS;

A. C.; MOBY; WALLACE; J. JOSEPH

CURRAN, JR.; GLENN BELL, Assistant

Attorney General, Individually and in their official capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-93-3765-PJM)

Submitted: January 18, 1996

Decided: February 5, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gantt v. Smith, No. CA-93-3765-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 27, 1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres- ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Judge Luttig would impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process.

AFFIRMED

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring:

Appellant has filed thirty-two appeals in this court betwen Septem- ber 26, 1991, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant for abuse of the judicial process.