Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06659/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06659-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6659

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK CONROY, Warden; THOMAS CORCORAN, Ex-Warden; CHARLES 

H. BRADBERRY, Case Manager; D. HOWARD, Case Manager; C. 

ALTON, Case Manager; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants 

are sued individual and official capacities,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

B. ALLEN, Supervisor Case Management, 

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:01-cv-01581-JFM)

Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6659 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6659 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., filed a lawsuit in the district 

court under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act, claiming that the Defendants discriminated 

against him on account of his physical disabilities. The 

district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants on the 

ground that McCoy settled the asserted claims in a settlement 

agreement reached in a prior action. McCoy now appeals.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. McCoy v. Conroy, No. 1:01-cv-01581-JFM (D. Md. filed 

Apr. 15, 2016; entered Apr. 18, 2016). 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: 16-6659 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3