Sewell v. Rowley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit February 17, 2011

Sewell v. Rowley, 411 F. App'x 621 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion of the Court

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Rowley, No. 8:09-cv-00693-DKC, 2010 WL 1068055 (D.Md. Mar. 18, 2010). We further deny Sewell’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Reference

Full Case Name: Emmanuel Edward SEWELL v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden Iames, Correctional Officer Raley, Correctional Officer McKenzie, Correctional Officer Shoemaker, Correctional Officer Adams, Correctional Officer Walker, Correctional Officer House, Correctional Officer Werner, Sergeant Whiteman, Sergeant Speir, Sergeant Correctional Medical Services
Status: Published