Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Emmanuel Sewell v. Acting Commissioner, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Emmanuel E. Sewell v. Acting Commissioner J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Sewell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and denied Sewell's pending motions. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Emmanuel Sewell v. Acting Commissioner, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Emmanuel E. Sewell v. Acting Commissioner J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Sewell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and denied Sewell's pending motions. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-09-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6680

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Emmanuel E. Sewell v. Acting Commissioner J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Sewell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and denied Sewell's pending motions. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Emmanuel Sewell v. Acting Commissioner, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Emmanuel E. Sewell v. Acting Commissioner J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Sewell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and denied Sewell's pending motions. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    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. 12-6680

    EMMANUEL E. SEWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ACTING COMMISSIONER J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; WARDEN BOBBY P.
    SHEARIN; CAPTAIN STOTTER; LT. J. L. HARBAUGH; LT. D. DURST;
    LT. J. W. HAGGARD; LT. HENCH; SGT. R. H. LIPHOLD, JR.; SGT.
    R. R. SHANK; SGT. G. B. MCALPINE; SGT. M. BURGER; D. L.
    SMITH; SGT. SIMMONS; SGT. LANCASTER; SGT. MCKENZIE; J. A.
    KENNELL; K. E. CROWE; D. S. CAPLE; R. A. KRUISE; D. E.
    RICHARD; P. DEIST; B. BRISKEY; R. R. HOLLINS; WHEATSTONE; J.
    W. PRITTS; D. MICHAEL; M. HUBNER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
    Judge. (8:11-cv-01584-DKC)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2012

    Decided:

    September 18, 2012

    Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Emmanuel E. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler, OFFICE OF

    THE ATTORNEY
    Appellees.

    GENERAL

    OF

    MARYLAND,

    Baltimore,

    Maryland,

    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Emmanuel E. Sewell 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.

    See Sewell v. Stouffer, No. 8:11-cv-01584-DKC (D. Md.

    Apr. 2, 2012).

    We deny Sewells pending motions.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like