Michael Edward Williams v. Richard Lanham, Sr. William Smith Michael Brave, M.D. Emilio Brillantes, Officer, Co II Russell Parks, Officer, Co II

Fourth Circuit

Michael Edward Williams v. Richard Lanham, Sr. William Smith Michael Brave, M.D. Emilio Brillantes, Officer, Co II Russell Parks, Officer, Co II

16 F.3d 414, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7401, 1994 WL 38858

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1994

Docket93-7062

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 414 (Michael Edward Williams v. Richard Lanham, Sr. William Smith Michael Brave, M.D. Emilio Brillantes, Officer, Co II Russell Parks, Officer, Co II) 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

Michael Edward Williams v. Richard Lanham, Sr. William Smith Michael Brave, M.D. Emilio Brillantes, Officer, Co II Russell Parks, Officer, Co II, 16 F.3d 414, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7401, 1994 WL 38858 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

16 F.3d 414
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Richard LANHAM, Sr.; William Smith; Michael Brave, M.D.;
Emilio Brillantes, Officer, CO II; Russell Parks,
Officer, CO II, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-7062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Feb. 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-93-1145-L)

Michael Edward Williams, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD; Philip Melton Andrews, Perry F. Sekus, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Lanham, No. CA-93-1145-L (D. Md. Sept. 7, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion for 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

*

We deny Williams' Motion for Appointed Counsel and Motion for Assistance. Williams may file another action in the district court regarding the alleged retaliatory actions taken by prison officials if he feels his civil rights are being violated

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

16 F.3d 414
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.

Michael Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Richard LANHAM, Sr.; William Smith; Michael Brave, M.D.;
Emilio Brillantes, Officer, CO II; Russell Parks,
Officer, CO II, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-7062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Feb. 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-93-1145-L)

Michael Edward Williams, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD; Philip Melton Andrews, Perry F. Sekus, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Lanham, No. CA-93-1145-L (D. Md. Sept. 7, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion for 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

*

We deny Williams' Motion for Appointed Counsel and Motion for Assistance. Williams may file another action in the district court regarding the alleged retaliatory actions taken by prison officials if he feels his civil rights are being violated

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F.3d 414, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7401, 1994 WL 38858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-edward-williams-v-richard-lanham-sr-willia-ca4-1994.