Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Mitchell v. Williams, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Wallace Mitchell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several prison officers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on Mitchell's complaint and also denied his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Mitchell appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court relied on the reasoning of the district court in denying both Mitchell's complaint and his recusal motion.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mitchell v. Williams, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Wallace Mitchell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several prison officers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on Mitchell's complaint and also denied his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Mitchell appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court relied on the reasoning of the district court in denying both Mitchell's complaint and his recusal motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6291

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Wallace Mitchell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several prison officers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on Mitchell's complaint and also denied his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Mitchell appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court relied on the reasoning of the district court in denying both Mitchell's complaint and his recusal motion.

    Copyright:

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

    Mitchell v. Williams, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Wallace Mitchell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several prison officers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court denied relief on Mitchell's complaint and also denied his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Mitchell appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court relied on the reasoning of the district court in denying both Mitchell's complaint and his recusal motion.

    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. 98-6291

    WALLACE MITCHELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    K. WILLIAMS, Sergeant; CAPTAIN RUZICKA; ALTON
    BARR, Officer; D. BROWN, Officer; HOWARD
    BARKSDALE, Officer; D. DEMBY, Sergeant; DELANVIEL EVANS, Sergeant; OFFICER KNIGHT; E.
    NWOJI, Officer; R W. MANNING, Officer; DEREK
    WHEELER, Officer; D. JOHNSON, Officer; OFFICER
    TOWNSEND; EUGENE BURNS, Sergeant; OFFICER
    MCMILLIAN, Property; W. TAYLOR, Officer, COII,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    B. TAYLOR, Officer in their personal and professional capacity,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-971915-L)

    Submitted:

    June 18, 1998

    Decided:

    July 8, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district courts order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint and order denying Appellants
    motion for recusal. We have reviewed the record and the district
    courts opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Williams,
    No. CA-97-1915-L (D. Md. Dec. 24, 1997; Feb. 18, 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