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)
16-1573•Brandon Watson v. City of Aberdeen
16-1573Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 29, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1573
BRANDON WATSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ABERDEEN; ABERDEEN POLICE DEPARTMENT; PFC. RAUL
FOSMARK; DETECTIVE JOHN DIVEL; CPL. CRAIG GENTILE; HARRY
FREDRICK BUDNICK; OFFICER THADDEUS TOMLINSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00307-JKB)
Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay Fred Cohen, LAW OFFICES OF JAY FRED COHEN, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI &
KARP, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Watson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Watson v. Aberdeen, No. 1:15-cv-00307-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 25,
2016). We 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.