U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Mitchell v. Corcoran

Mitchell v. Corcoran
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 3, 1998

Mitchell v. Corcoran

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7860

WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

JOHN F. JACKSON; JOSEPH JENKINS EL; FOREST JONES; REGINALD GOLDER; KIMYON MARSHALL; ANDRE MINOR EL; JEAN NAAR; RAYMOND POPE; MARCEL K.

ROM; HERBERT WHITE, JR.; CURTIS L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, versus

THOMAS CORCORAN; LIEUTENANT HALL; OFFICER BARKSDALE; T. ROWLAND, Officer; SERGEANT BURNS; CAPTAIN RAULING; OFFICER BURNS, C.O.

II; M. SINGHAS; D. SQUIRE, Officer; CAPTAIN REID; OFFICER BRUNO, C.O. II; P. KRAUSS, Officer; OFFICER JANNEY; CAPTAIN LUTZ; OFFICER PURVIS, C.O. II; OFFICER SPAIN; OFFICER WHEELER, C.O. II; C. MYERS, Officer, C.O. II; OFFICER BARR, C.O. II; SERGEANT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT JOHNSON; OFFICER TILLMAN, C.O. II; SERGEANT EVANS; RAYMOND WHITE, Officer; MAJOR TUTHILL; KATHY LANDERKIN, Lieutenant; SERGEANT HOLLAND; SERGEANT DEMBY; BARBARA BROWN, in their personal and professional capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 298-L)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 3, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-298-L (D. Md. Dec. 4, 1997). 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.