Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0390-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 12-6700.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Oct. 30, 2012.
    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.
    Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 2012 WL 832787 (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.