Case Name: Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Iames, Correctional Officer; Raley, Correctional Officer; McKenzie, Correctional Officer; Shoemaker, Correctional Officer; Adams, Correctional Officer; Walker, Correctional Officer; House, Correctional Officer; Werner, Sergeant; Whiteman, Sergeant; Speir, Sergeant; Correctional Medical Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-17
Citations: 411 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 10-6463
Parties: Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Iames, Correctional Officer; Raley, Correctional Officer; McKenzie, Correctional Officer; Shoemaker, Correctional Officer; Adams, Correctional Officer; Walker, Correctional Officer; House, Correctional Officer; Werner, Sergeant; Whiteman, Sergeant; Speir, Sergeant; Correctional Medical Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Iames, Correctional Officer; Raley, Correctional Officer; McKenzie, Correctional Officer; Shoemaker, Correctional Officer; Adams, Correctional Officer; Walker, Correctional Officer; House, Correctional Officer; Werner, Sergeant; Whiteman, Sergeant; Speir, Sergeant; Correctional Medical Services, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6463.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2011.
Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip M. Pickus, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, Philip Melton Andrews, Kramon & Graham, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Rowley, No. 8:09-cv-00693-DKC, 2010 WL 1068055 (D.Md. Mar. 18, 2010). We further deny Sewell's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.