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)
13-1474•Luecretia Dawn Owens-El, f/k/a Luecretia Dawn McNair-Bey; CHE' QUADAFFI WILLIAMS-EL v. Lieutenant Kapfhammer
13-1474Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 25, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1474
LUECRETIA DAWN OWENS-EL, f/k/a Luecretia Dawn McNair-Bey;
CHE' QUADAFFI WILLIAMS-EL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LIEUTENANT KAPFHAMMER; GEORGE GITHARA, Officer; CHRISTIAN V.
KAIKAI, Officer; JOSEPH LANDSMAN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE
#5; JOHN DOE #6, Office all of and from the Western District
Police Station for the Baltimore City Police Department; D.
M. ROSS, Sergeant,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-03213-JFM)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Luecretia Dawn Owens-El, Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El, Appellants
Pro Se. Michael Lawrence Marshall, SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER,
PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Suzanne Sangree, BALTIMORE CITY LAW
DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Luecretia Dawn Owens-El and Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. Owens-El v. Kapfhammer,
No. 1:10-cv-03213-JFM (D. Md. filed Mar. 8, 2013, entered Mar.
11, 2013; Aug. 22, 2012; filed May 13, 2011, entered May 16,
2011). We grant the motion for an extension of time, deny the
motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.