Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0257-01.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 Edward SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; Warden Bobby Shearin; Major Mellott; Captain Stotler; M. Yacench; Lt. Dale Smith; Lt. George McAlpine; Lieutenant Manuel; J. Gary Sindy; Sergeant Forney; L.O. Miller; Lt. R. Fritz; Lieutenant Thomas; J.R. Mallow; G. Mallow; Lowery; J. Hartman; D.S. Caple; D. Michael; J.E. Wiemer; C. Preston; J. Wilt; S. Lipscomb; Officer Wilson; J.W. Reieke; J. Farris; Ryan Kalbaugh; Craig Peters; Luke Girvin; Officer Ort; Officer Vetorae; D. Syverstad; M. Kisner; M.E. Price; A. Lodgson; D.J. Smith; Romesburg; M. Bucholtz, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-6316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2015.
    Decided: July 23, 2015.
    Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Dorianne Avery Meloy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 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. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D.Md. Jan. 23, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.