Revels v. Ervin
This text of Revels v. Ervin (Revels v. Ervin) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6509
JOSEPH SAMUEL REVELS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. D. ERVIN, Chief and others; POCOMOKE CITY FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL THORNTON, Chief, Pocomoke City Fire and Rescue Department; AMBULANCE PERSONNEL AND OTHERS; SERGEANT TOWNSEND; RALPH CORBIN, Officer; DAMON PROPST, Officer; WORCESTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Warden and others,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-3320-01-WMN)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Samuel Revels, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Samuel Revels appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny Revels’ motion for the production of tape recordings,
interviews, and medical records, and we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Revels v. Ervin, No. CA-02-3320-01-WMN (D.
Md. Feb. 13, 2003). 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
Revels v. Ervin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/revels-v-ervin-ca4-2003.