Charles A. Creighton v. Sewall Smith, Warden T. Purnell, Mr.

Fourth Circuit

Charles A. Creighton v. Sewall Smith, Warden T. Purnell, Mr.

48 F.3d 1215, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11010, 1995 WL 105287

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1995

Docket94-7149

StatusPublished

This text of 48 F.3d 1215 (Charles A. Creighton v. Sewall Smith, Warden T. Purnell, Mr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles A. Creighton v. Sewall Smith, Warden T. Purnell, Mr., 48 F.3d 1215, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11010, 1995 WL 105287 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

48 F.3d 1215
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles A. CREIGHTON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Sewall SMITH, Warden; T. Purnell, Mr., Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 1995
Decided: March 14, 1995.

Charles A. Creighton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Creighton appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Creighton v. Smith, No. CA-93-2331-HAR (D. Md. Sept. 20, 1994). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

48 F.3d 1215
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles A. CREIGHTON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Sewall SMITH, Warden; T. Purnell, Mr., Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-7149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 1995
Decided: March 14, 1995.

Charles A. Creighton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Creighton appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Creighton v. Smith, No. CA-93-2331-HAR (D. Md. Sept. 20, 1994). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F.3d 1215, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11010, 1995 WL 105287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-a-creighton-v-sewall-smith-warden-t-purnel-ca4-1995.