Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jeffrey Young-Bey v. A. Logston, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    Jeffrey Young-Bey filed a §1983 complaint against prison officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and Young-Bey appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Young-Bey's motion to file a supplemental brief, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, deciding it would not aid the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7182

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jeffrey Young-Bey filed a §1983 complaint against prison officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and Young-Bey appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Young-Bey's motion to file a supplemental brief, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, deciding it would not aid the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Jeffrey Young-Bey v. A. Logston, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jeffrey Young-Bey filed a §1983 complaint against prison officials alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and Young-Bey appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied Young-Bey's motion to file a supplemental brief, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, deciding it would not aid the decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-7182

    JEFFREY M. YOUNG-BEY,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    A. LOGSTON, CO II; SGT. J. SMITH; C. M. CAMPBELL, Case
    Manager; B. CASSIDY, Case Mngmt Supv.; WARDEN BOBBY
    SHEARIN; STATE OF MARYLAND; M. FISHER, CO II; M. EMERICK,
    CO II; C. PRICE, CO II; A. DURST, CO II; SGT. MCKENNY; C.
    CAMPBELL; KEITH ARNOLD; M. SNYDER, CO II,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    FRANK B. BISHOP, Security Chief; TWELVE JOHN DOES,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
    Judge. (1:11-cv-00536-JFM)

    Submitted:

    February 28, 2013

    Decided:

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    March 29, 2013

    Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey Maurice Young-Bey appeals the district courts
    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.

    Young-Bey

    June 22,

    2012).

    v.
    We

    supplemental brief.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    Logston,
    also

    No.

    deny

    1:11-cv-00536-JFM

    Young-Beys

    motion

    to

    (D.

    Md.

    file

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like