Owens-El v. Kapfhammer
This text of 547 F. App'x 216 (Owens-El v. Kapfhammer) 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
Luecretia Dawn Owens-El and Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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. Owens-El v. Kapfhammer, No. l:10-cv-03213-JFM, 2013 WL 951734 (D.Md. filed Mar. 8, 2013, entered Mar. 11, 2013; Aug. 22, 2012; filed May 13, 2011, entered May 16, 2011). We grant the motion for an extension of time, deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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
547 F. App'x 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-el-v-kapfhammer-ca4-2013.