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)
11-6767•Steven E. Tarpley v. Charlene Hetty Trenum; Isais Tessema
11-6767Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 21, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6767
STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLENE HETTY TRENUM; ISAIS TESSEMA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; DAVID BARTHALOW;
FREDERICK NASTRI; ALBERT EARL DAVIS; JON GALLEY; BOBBY
SHEARIN; FRANK BISHOP, JR.; DONALD CROWE; DOUGLAS DEVORE;
TINNELE WINTERS; ROBERT M. FRIEND; KETTERMAN, Lieutenant; O.
W. CREEK; W. D. SLATE; ROBERT HUFF; B. A. WILT; JOHN DOE,
Sgt., H.U.-4; M. B. GARRISON; S. WINEBRENNER; JEFFREY
SHIMKO; JEREMY LINABURG; R. GOVER; R. GRAHAM; O. K. BERRY;
JAMES BEEMAN; R. SHIELDS; R. GOSS; MILANEY LILLER; BARBARA
NEWLON; KATHLEEN GREENE, Warden; BRUCE BOZMAN; LT.
GALLIGHER; MAJOR MAYCOCK; TYLER, Capt., Mailroom Supervisor;
PERSINGER; SCOTT S. OAKLEY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02140-BEL)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews,
Ryan Alexander Mitchell, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley 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. Tarpley v. Trenum, No. 1:10-cv-02140-BEL (D. Md. filed
June 1, 2011, and entered June 2, 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.