OpenJurist

898 F2d 149 Woodliff v. N Lyles Mp J Mp Mp K Mp Mp Php N

898 F.2d 149
Unpublished Disposition

Lewis A. WOODLIFF, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Howard N. LYLES, Former MP Warden; Arnold J. Hopkins,
Former Commissioner; Frank Hunt, MP Chief Medical Officer;
Robert Means, Former MP Orthopedist; Bryant K. Howard, MP
Physician Assistant; Reggie Diggs, Former MP Physical
Assistant; P.H.P. Health Care Corporation; James N.
Rollins, Warden; Bernard Smith, Assistant Warden; James
Saunders, Shift Commander; Robert Brown, Segregation
Assistant Commander; William Sinkler, Segregation Officer
in Charge; Larry Darnell, Segregation Officer in Charge;
Kenny Towns, Segregation Officer in Charge; Reginald
Winmond, Segregation Officer; Ron Alston, Segregation
Officer, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 89-6793.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 29, 1989.
Decided: March 6, 1990.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-468-S)

Lewis A. Woodliff, appellant pro se.

Timothy James Paulus, Assistant Attorney General; Paul T. Cuzmanes, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Lewis A. Woodliff appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Woodliff v. Lyles, C/A No. 89-468-S (D.Md. Aug. 14, 1989). We deny Woodliff's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

2

AFFIRMED.