996 F. 2d 1211 - Holsey Robinson v. D Schaefer L R D
996 F2d 1211 Holsey Robinson v. D Schaefer L R D
996 F.2d 1211
Aaron HOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Quentin ROBINSON; Karl Pickett; Leon Sprouse; Reginald
Jones, Plaintiffs,
v.
William D. SCHAEFER, Individually and as Governor of the
State of Maryland; Bishop L. Robinson, Individually and as
Secretary of Department of the Division of Corrections;
Richard Lanham, Individually and as Commissioner of the
Division of Corrections; Thomas R. Corcoran, Individually
and as Warden of the Brockbridge Correctional Facility;
Lehman Dotson, Individually and as Supervisor of
Classification at Brockbridge; William Britton,
Individually and as Supervisor of Classification at
Brockbridge; Michael Wells, Individually and as
Classification Counselor at the Brockbridge Prison; William
D. Filbert, Jr., Individually and as Assistant Warden of the
Brockbridge Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-6469.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 7, 1993.
Decided: June 29, 1993.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-556-K)
Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se.
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
D.Md.
AFFIRMED.
Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Advertisement
Aaron Holsey appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holsey v. Schaefer, No. CA-91-556-K (D. Md. Apr. 16, 1993). 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