Case Name: Elwood COX-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lamont W. FLANAGAN, Commissioner of Division of Pretrial Detention & Services; William Jednorski, Warden, Baltimore Central Booking Intake Center; Martin O'Malley, Baltimore Mayor; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore, Defendants-Appellees, and 3 Unknown Named Correctional Officers, at Central Booking Intake Center, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-24
Citations: 17 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 01-6302
Parties: Elwood COX-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lamont W. FLANAGAN, Commissioner of Division of Pretrial Detention & Services; William Jednorski, Warden, Baltimore Central Booking Intake Center; Martin O’Malley, Baltimore Mayor; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore, Defendants-Appellees, and 3 Unknown Named Correctional Officers, at Central Booking Intake Center, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 141–141

Head Matter:
Elwood COX-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lamont W. FLANAGAN, Commissioner of Division of Pretrial Detention & Services; William Jednorski, Warden, Baltimore Central Booking Intake Center; Martin O’Malley, Baltimore Mayor; Baltimore City Council; City of Baltimore, Defendants-Appellees, and 3 Unknown Named Correctional Officers, at Central Booking Intake Center, Defendants.
No. 01-6302.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 31, 2001.
Decided Aug. 24, 2001.
Elwood Cox-El, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; William Rowe Phelan, Jr., Office of the City Solicitor, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elwood Cox-El appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cox-El v. Flanagan, No. CA-00-2588 S (D.Md. Feb. 5, 2001). We deny Cox-El's motion for the appointment of counsel and 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.