McSheffrey v. Hawk-Sawyer
This text of McSheffrey v. Hawk-Sawyer (McSheffrey v. Hawk-Sawyer) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6453
JOHN PATRICK MCSHEFFREY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; MARGARET C. HAMBRICK, Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Annapolis, Maryland; GREGORY BOGDAN, in his individual and official capacity as Associate Warden, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; WILLIAM HENDERSON, in his individual and official capacity as Associate Warden, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; JEFFREY BOLYARD, in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of Industries, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; JERRY LEWIS, in his individual and official capacity as Lieutenant, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; SHIRLEY CRUMP, in his individual and official capacity, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; R. DULLA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 1195-AMD) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Patrick McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jennifer A. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Beverly M. Russell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 - PER CURIAM:
John Patrick McSheffrey appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See McSheffrey v. Hawk-
Sawyer, No. CA-04-1195-AMD (D. Md. filed Jan. 28, 2005 & entered
Jan. 31, 2005). 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
McSheffrey v. Hawk-Sawyer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcsheffrey-v-hawk-sawyer-ca4-2005.