Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Hammel Clark v. Kathyrn Jacobs, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Hammel J. Clark in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Clark appealed the district court's ruling pro se. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The court also denied Clark's motion to appoint counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hammel Clark v. Kathyrn Jacobs, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Hammel J. Clark in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Clark appealed the district court's ruling pro se. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The court also denied Clark's motion to appoint counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6402

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Hammel J. Clark in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Clark appealed the district court's ruling pro se. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The court also denied Clark's motion to appoint counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Hammel Clark v. Kathyrn Jacobs, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Hammel J. Clark in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Clark appealed the district court's ruling pro se. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The court also denied Clark's motion to appoint counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6402

    HAMMEL J. CLARK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KATHYRN J. JACOBS,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11cv-01555-RWT)

    Submitted:

    June 14, 2012

    Decided: June 19, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Hammel J. Clark, Appellant Pro Se.


    Hinrichs,
    OFFICE
    OF
    THE
    ATTORNEY
    Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Christopher
    GENERAL
    OF

    Alexander
    MARYLAND,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Hammel

    J.

    Clark

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Clark v. Jacobs, No. 8:11-cv-01555-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 21,

    2012).

    We deny Clarks pending motion to appoint counsel.

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like