Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michael Chew v. Kathleen Green, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Michael Chew on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Chew's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Chew v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2014). The Court of Appeals determined oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7437

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Michael Chew on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Chew's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Chew v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2014). The Court of Appeals determined oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Michael Chew v. Kathleen Green, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Michael Chew on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Chew's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Chew v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2014). The Court of Appeals determined oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7437

    MICHAEL CHEW,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; JAMES TICHNELL,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    PAUL
    WISENGOFF;
    GREGORY
    BIRCH;
    BRUCE
    BOZMAN;
    DENISE
    GELSINGER;
    SCOTT
    ROWE,
    Correctional
    Case
    Management
    Specialist; HAMILTON, Gang Intel,
    Defendants,
    v.
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Party-in-Interest.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
    Judge. (8:13-cv-02115-DKC)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2015

    Decided:

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    January 27, 2015

    Michael Chew, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, OFFICE


    OT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael

    Chew

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we deny Chews motion for appointment of counsel


    and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Chew

    v. Gatewood, No. 8:13-cv-02115-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2014).


    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like