Friedman v. Warden
This text of Friedman v. Warden (Friedman v. Warden) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6324
ANDREW FRIEDMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; JOHN P. GALLEY, Commissioner; WAYNE WEBB, Assistant Warden; KENNETH HORNING, Warden; SERGEANT HINKLE; OFFICER YOUNKER; OFFICER RICHIE; OFFICER HENRY; JON WHITEMAN, Lieutenant; CHAPLAIN ISHMAEL; OFFICER DUNN; OFFICER GELESPI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:10-cv-00248-DKC)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Friedman, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Andrew Friedman 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. Friedman v. Warden, No. 8:10-cv-00248-DKC (D. Md. Feb.
28, 2011). We deny Friedman’s motion to appoint 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Friedman v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-warden-ca4-2011.