Sewell v. Rowley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2011
• Docket: 10-6463
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6463

EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden; IAMES, Correctional Officer; RALEY, Correctional Officer; MCKENZIE, Correctional Officer; SHOEMAKER, Correctional Officer; ADAMS, Correctional Officer; WALKER, Correctional Officer; HOUSE, Correctional Officer; WERNER, Sergeant; WHITEMAN, Sergeant; SPEIR, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:09-cv-00693-DKC)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip M. Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 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. Sewell v. Rowley, No. 8:09-cv-00693-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 18,

2010). We further deny Sewell’s motion for appointment of

counsel. 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