Case ID: f-appx_24/html/0220-01.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

Tommy Ray ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin HOUSTON, Lieutenant; B. Ford, Sergeant; R. Gant, Sergeant; W. Pinkett, Correctional Officer II; D. Chase, Correctional Officer II; M. Stevenson, Correctional Officer II, A. Smith, Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Tommy Ray Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin Houston, Lieutenant; Bernard Ford, Sergeant; Dion Pinkett, Correctional Officer II; Darrick Chase, Correctional Officer II; Maurice Stevenson, Correctional Officer II; Reginald Gant, Sergeant; Eugene Nuth, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; J. Owens, Property Room Officer; Officer Smitty; other Unknown Named Defendants, et al, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 00-7565, 00-7566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 25, 2002.
    Terry Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Toni-Jean Lisa, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law in his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, as supported by its reasons as stated from the bench, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Houston, Nos. CA-96-1298AMD; CA-96-896-AMD; CA-96-1388AMD (D.Md. Sept. 27, 2000).

We deny Robinson’s motion for a transcript at government expense because he has failed to establish grounds for the transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We also deny Robinson’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.