Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Solomon Chatman-Bey v. Lt. McCracken, 14 F.3d 593, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 18, 1994. It affirms the lower district court's denial of relief to Solomon Chatman-Bey in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lieutenant McCracken. The Fourth Circuit finds the appeal is without merit based on its review of the record and the reasoning of the lower district court's ruling in Chatman-Bey v. McCracken, No. CA-93-1769-S from September 24, 1993. The Fourth Circuit dispenses with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-01-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 14 F.3d 593 Docket: 93-7085

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 18, 1994. It affirms the lower district court's denial of relief to Solomon Chatman-Bey in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lieutenant McCracken. The Fourth Circuit finds the appeal is without merit based on its review of the record and the reasoning of the lower district court's ruling in Chatman-Bey v. McCracken, No. CA-93-1769-S from September 24, 1993. The Fourth Circuit dispenses with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Solomon Chatman-Bey v. Lt. McCracken, 14 F.3d 593, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 18, 1994. It affirms the lower district court's denial of relief to Solomon Chatman-Bey in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Lieutenant McCracken. The Fourth Circuit finds the appeal is without merit based on its review of the record and the reasoning of the lower district court's ruling in Chatman-Bey v. McCracken, No. CA-93-1769-S from September 24, 1993. The Fourth Circuit dispenses with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    14 F.

    3d 593

    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.
    Solomon CHATMAN-BEY, Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    Lt. McCRACKEN, Defendant Appellee.
    No. 93-7085.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 4, 1994.
    Decided Jan. 18, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-93-1769-S)
    Solomon Chatman-Bey, appellant pro se.
    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst.
    Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    D.Md.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Chatman-Bey v. McCracken, No. CA-931769-S (D. Md. Sept. 24, 1993). 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

    You might also like