Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06094/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06094-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6094

WARREN CHASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS; 

KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE 

CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICIA SHEARIN, 

Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD, 

Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant; 

J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN, 

Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN, 

Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. 

FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T. 

RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant; 

E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT, 

Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D. 

MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D. 

CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE, 

Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A. 

BAILEY, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-00834-CCB)

Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 10-6094 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, 

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

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6094 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Warren Chase 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 deny Chase’s motion for injunctive relief and 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Commissioners, No. 1:08-cv00834-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2009). We note Chase failed to 

indicate in his complaint that any specific Defendant acted with 

deliberate indifference to his serious needs. See Smith v. 

Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). 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

Appeal: 10-6094 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3