Gantt v. Smith ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE W. GANTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SEWALL SMITH, Warden; ASSISTANT
WARDEN WILSON; LIEUTENANT
GRANT; LIEUTENANT AULU; SERGEANT
LITTLE; SERGEANT CUNNINGHAM; JAKE
SUTTON; SERGEANT COCOLOUGH;
SERGEANT STATEN; SERGEANT
PRESSBURY; BOGGS; M. ROBINSON;
EMMANUAL NZEADIGHIBE,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
No. 94-7303
WALTER E. BLACK, JR.; JOSEPH HAAS;
CLARA GOULD; KIM BERGER,
Attorney, In their official and
individual capacities; RICHARD
LANHAM, SR., Senior Commissioner;
PURNELL, Chief of Security,
Individually and in their official
capacities; CAPTAIN PORGUESE;
CAPTAIN LEE; BIG STEWART; LITTLE
STEWART; PAUL KNIGHT; ANDREWS;
A. C.; MOBY; WALLACE; J. JOSEPH
CURRAN, JR.; GLENN BELL, Assistant
Attorney General, Individually and
in their official capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-93-3765-PJM)
Submitted: January 18, 1996
Decided: February 5, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gantt v. Smith,
No. CA-93-3765-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 27, 1994). We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. Judge Luttig would impose sanctions for abuse of
the judicial process.
AFFIRMED
LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring:
Appellant has filed thirty-two appeals in this court betwen Septem-
ber 26, 1991, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant
for abuse of the judicial process.
3