Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 24, 1997. It involves an appeal by Leamon L. Tatum of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. They also denied Tatum's motions to appoint counsel and for production of documents, and decided oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-01-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 106 F.3d 392 Docket: 96-7418

    Original Title

    Leamon L. Tatum v. Division of Correction Maryland House of Correction Richard Lanham, Doc Comm. William L. Smith, Mhc-J Warden Major Williams Captain Koppel, 106 F.3d 392, 4th Cir. (1997)

    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 24, 1997. It involves an appeal by Leamon L. Tatum of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. They also denied Tatum's motions to appoint counsel and for production of documents, and decided oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 24, 1997. It involves an appeal by Leamon L. Tatum of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. They also denied Tatum's motions to appoint counsel and for production of documents, and decided oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    106 F.

    3d 392

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.
    Leamon L. TATUM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    DIVISION OF CORRECTION; Maryland House of
    Correction;
    Richard Lanham, DOC Comm.; William L. Smith,
    MHC-J Warden; Major Williams; Captain
    Koppel, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 96-7418.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 9, 1997.
    Decided Jan. 24, 1997.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-1009-S)
    Leamon L. Tatum, Appellant Pro Se.
    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Toni-Jean Lisa, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellees.
    Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Leamon L. Tatum appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42
    U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the


    reasoning of the district court. Tatum v. Division of Correction, No. CA-961009-S (D.Md. Aug. 8, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions to appoint counsel
    and for production of documents. 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