Mohammed v. Chavis

917 F.2d 1301, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20006, 1990 WL 174650
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 13, 1990
Docket90-6879
StatusUnpublished

This text of 917 F.2d 1301 (Mohammed v. Chavis) 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
Mohammed v. Chavis, 917 F.2d 1301, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20006, 1990 WL 174650 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

917 F.2d 1301
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Sahid MOHAMMED, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Terrie C. CHAVIS, Warden, Maryland House of Correction,
Angela Dennis, Classification Counselor, Maryland House of
Correction, John J. Kinsly, CO II, Victor Welfl, Captain,
Maryland House of Correction, John Doe, Unknown Defendants,
Each defendant is sued individually and in official
capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6879.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 1990.
Decided Nov. 13, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-89-2973-MJG)

Sahid Mohammed, appellant pro se.

Audrey J.S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sahid Mohammed appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Mohammed v. Chavis, CA-89-2973-MJG (D.Md. July 12, 1990). 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

Related

Bepex Corporation v. Stouffer Foods Corporation
917 F.2d 1301 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
917 F.2d 1301, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20006, 1990 WL 174650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohammed-v-chavis-ca4-1990.