The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-6298•Titus Thomas v. AJALA, Sgt.; A. YUSUT; HARRIS, Sgt.; AMAGHIONYEODIWE, Officer
11-6298Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 29, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6298
TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AJALA, Sgt.; A. YUSUT; HARRIS, Sgt.; AMAGHIONYEODIWE,
Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JUSTIN CHANEY, inmate #348-112; ANTONIO WATSON, inmate #336-
897; TERRY MILLER, inmate #274-682; MARCUS SHANNON, inmate
#281-148,
Defendants.
No. 11-6599
TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G.L. WILSON, Officer; D. KRAMPT, Officer; R.C. ALLISON,
Officer; T. MENGUS, Officer; OFFICER HENDERSON; TERRY
MILLER, Inmate ID 274-682; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate ID 348-112;
GARY ANDERSON, Inmate ID 344-943; IMANI GREEN, Inmate ID
337-646,
Defendants – Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02003-AW)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges
the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) civil rights complaints. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that there is no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D. Md. Feb.
23, 2011); Thomas v. Wilson, No. 8:10-cv-02003-AW (D. Md. Jan.
20, 2011). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.