Emmanuel Edward Sewell v. Kathleen Green

10-6392Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit28.02.2011

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6392
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN GREEN; MICHAEL KING; BRIAN ROMINES; ZOCK, Sergeant;
WESTBROOK, Officer; RAGINS, Officer; GARRISEY, Officer;
BARNES, Lieutenant; JOHNSON, Lieutenant; WALTER HOLMES,
Captain; UNIDENTIFIED BLACK OFFICER; FIVE UNKNOWN OFFICERS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WARDEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cv-01027-DKC)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie
Gatewood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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. Green, No. 8:08-cv-01027-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 16,
2010). We deny Sewell’s motion to appoint counsel.*
AFFIRMED
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.
* Sewell has filed a document entitled “Motion of Issues on
Appeal of the Lower Courts [sic] Judgment” that appears to be
his brief on appeal. We deny the motion.

-- 3 of 3 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.