Emmanuel Sewell v. J. Stouffer ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6700
EMMANUEL E. SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; BOBBY P. SHEARIN; RICHARD R. GRAHAM;
LIEUTENANT J. L. HARBAUGH; LIEUTENANT D. DURST; LIEUTENANT
YACHENCH; LIEUTENANT HAGGARD; SERGEANT SIMMONS; SERGEANT R.
R. SHANK; SERGEANT R. H. LIPHOLD, JR.; SERGEANT LANCASTER;
SERGEANT G. B. MCALPINE; SERGEANT M. BULGER; SERGEANT D. L.
SMITH; SERGEANT MCKENZIE; L. GIRVIN, CO II; P. DEIST, CO II;
J. A. FRIEND, CO II; R. KEEFER, CO II; J. W. PRITTS, CO II;
KISNER, CO II; R. R. HOLLINS, CO II; T. A. MELLOT, CO II;
KENNELL, J.A., CO II; PETERS, CO II; KALBAUGH; M. HUBNER;
SMITH; JODI STOUFFER; TINA M. GERAGHTY; SUSIE CUNNINGHAM;
SHARON BAUCOM; MARY JOE SABETTELLI; DR. BEN OTEYZA; DR.
MAJID ARNAOUT; P.A. GREG FLURY; NURSE STEVE BRAY; NURSE
AFRICA; NURSE CHRISTINA B.; NURSE JANICE GILMORE; DR. JAMES
HOLWAGER; SHERRY HEFFERCAMP; LAURA MOULDEN; OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WARDEN; STEPHEN Z. MEEHAN; JOSEPH B. TETRAULT; PAULINE K.
WHITE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00614-DKC)
Submitted: October 15, 2012 Decided: October 30, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Lane-
Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip
Melton Andrews, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel E. Sewell appeals the district court’s 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. See Sewell v. Stouffer, No. 8:11-cv-00614-DKC (D. Md.
Mar. 9, 2012). We deny Sewell’s 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
3