Williams v. Warden

Filing 920071115


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6219 KENNETH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN, M.R.D.C.C. D.O.C.; MEDICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CORRECTIONAL Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-01954-AW) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Williams appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint against the Warden of the Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center and Correctional Medical Services, Inc. We have reviewed the record and affirm the district court's dismissal of Williams' claims for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Warden, No. 8:06-cv-01954-AW (D. Md. filed Jan. 18, 2007; entered Jan. 22, 2007). We also affirm the district court's denial of Williams' motion to amend because the amendment would have been futile, see United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000), and deny Williams' motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?