Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Steven Tarpley v. J. Stouffer, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Steven E. Tarpley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its October 11, 2012 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7498

    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 on Steven E. Tarpley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its October 11, 2012 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views3 pages

    Steven Tarpley v. J. Stouffer, 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 on Steven E. Tarpley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its October 11, 2012 opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7498

    STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; DAVID BARTHALOW; FREDERICK J.
    NASTRI; ALBERT EARL DAVIS; JON GALLEY; BOBBY SHEARIN; FRANK
    BISHOP, JR.; DONALD CROWE; DOUGLAS DEVORE; TINNELE WINTERS;
    ROBERT M. FRIEND; KETTERMAN, Lt.; 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; CHARLENE HETTY TRENUM; BARBARA NEWLON; ISAIS TESSEMA;
    KATHLEEN GREENE, Warden; BRUCE BOZMAN; LT. GALLIGHER, Lt.;
    MAYCOCK, Maj.; TYLER, Capt., Mailroom Supervisor; PERSINGER;
    SCOTT S. OAKLEY, Mr. - Executive Director,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    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:

    June 21, 2012

    Decided:

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    June 25, 2012

    Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se.


    Stephanie Judith Lane
    Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Steven E. Tarpley 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.

    Tarpley

    v.

    Stouffer,

    Oct. 11,

    2012).

    We

    dispense

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    No.
    with

    1:10-cv-02140-BEL
    oral

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    (D.

    Md.

    because

    the

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like