Thomas v. Middleton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2011
• Docket: 10-7643
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7643

TITUS THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER GERAGHTY; IMANI GREEN, Inmate #337-646; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate #340-968; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate #348-112; SERGEANT MIDDLETON,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-7666

SERGEANT MIDDLETON; OFFICER FRAS; OFFICER KENDALL; CAPTAIN WALLS (MCTC),

No. 10-7764

v. SERGEANT HUFF; SERGEANT R. LIKIN; SERGEANT JOHN IHEOMA; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate; DONALD FOSTER, Inmate; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate; WILLIAM COOL, Inmate; TERRY MILLER, Inmate,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Party-in-Interest.

No. 11-6051

AJALA, Sgt.; A. YUSUT; HARRIS, Sgt.; AMAGHIONYEODIWE, Officer,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JUSTIN CHANEY, inmate #348-112; ANTONIO WATSON, inmate #336- 897; TERRY MILLER, inmate #274-682; MARCUS SHANNON, inmate #281-148,

Defendants.

No. 11-6055

2 JAMES TICHNELL, Case Management Supervisor; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; LT. FRIEND,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01478-AW; 8:10-cv-01494-AW; 8:10-cv-02153-AW; 8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02523-AW)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges

the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2006) complaints, denying reconsideration of those

orders, and denying Thomas’ motions to compel discovery and for

the appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Thomas v. Middleton,

No. 8:10-cv-01478-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v.

Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01494-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010);

Thomas v. Huff, No. 8:10-cv-02153-AW (D. Md. Dec. 8 & Dec. 29,

2010); Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29,

2010); Thomas v. Tichnell, No. 8:10-cv-02523-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29,

2010). We further deny Thomas’ motions for the 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