Cox v. Prince George's County

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 28, 2005
Docket04-2206
StatusUnpublished

This text of Cox v. Prince George's County (Cox v. Prince George's County) 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
Cox v. Prince George's County, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2206

DONNELL D. COX, SR.; MERCEDES T. COX, on behalf of themselves and seven of their minor children: S.C., D.C., R.C., V.C., M.C., D.C. and D.C.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; JOHN S. FARRELL; RICHARD E. WHITAKER, Detective, Prince George's County Police; OTHER UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS; B.E. TURNER, Prince George’s County Police,

Defendants - Appellees,

----------------------------------------

DAVID MORRIS, Captain; JOHN FINNERIN,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-02-1492-DKC)

Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnell D. Cox, Sr., Mercedes T. Cox, Appellants Pro Se. William Antoine Snoddy, Associate County Attorney, Leonard L. Lucchi, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; John Anthony Bielee, UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Donnell Cox, Sr. and Mercedes Cox appeal the district

court’s order entering judgment after a jury returned a verdict for

defendants on the Coxes’ civil rights complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

See Cox v. Prince George’s County, No. CA-02-1492-DKC (D. Md. Aug.

19, 2004). 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

- 3 -

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cox v. Prince George's County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-prince-georges-county-ca4-2005.