Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Martin v. Kavanagh, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Daniel Martin filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed the reasoning of the district court in denying relief to Martin on his § 1983 complaint. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7800

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daniel Martin filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed the reasoning of the district court in denying relief to Martin on his § 1983 complaint. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Martin v. Kavanagh, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Martin filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed the reasoning of the district court in denying relief to Martin on his § 1983 complaint. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-7800

    DANIEL R. MARTIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    WARREN CHASE; TERRY DORSEY; WILBUR SUTTON;
    LEON NOEL; ZACHARY MARTIN; COLANDO COLBERT;
    DOMINIC NEWSOME; MARQUIS DEAL; MICHAEL MILLER;
    ALVIN JONES; JERMIAH JONES; TROY JONES;
    CHARLES REED; KEVIN GRAVES,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    JACK KAVANAGH, Warden; BERNARD JONES, Lieutenant; D. WHITE, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    CARTER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLINT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER QUEEN; H. TOLBERT, Correctional
    Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POTEE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCCOY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    LASONER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRAXTON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-98-977-JFM)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 10, 1999

    Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel R. Martin, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Jospeph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Martin appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

    the district court.

    See Martin v. Kavanagh, No. CA-98-977-JFM (D.

    Md. Dec. 1, 1998).

    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