Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06316/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6316

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-02656-DKC)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Dorianne Avery Meloy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

Appeal: 15-6316 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6316 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-6316 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3