Titus Thomas v. Sergeant Middleton

Filing 920110309

<

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7643

TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER GERAGHTY; IMANI THOMAS, Inmate #340-968; SERGEANT MIDDLETON, GREEN, Inmate JUSTIN CHANEY, #337-646; JESSE Inmate #348-112;

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-7666

TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT MIDDLETON; OFFICER FRAS; OFFICER KENDALL; CAPTAIN WALLS (MCTC), Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-7764

TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

SERGEANT HUFF; SERGEANT R. LIKIN; SERGEANT JOHN IHEOMA; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate; DONALD FOSTER, Inmate; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate; WILLIAM COOL, Inmate; TERRY MILLER, Inmate, Defendants - Appellees. v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Party-in-Interest.

No. 11-6051

TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AJALA, Sgt.; Officer, A. YUSUT; HARRIS, Sgt.; AMAGHIONYEODIWE,

Defendants ­ Appellees, and JUSTIN CHANEY, inmate #348-112; ANTONIO WATSON, inmate #336897; TERRY MILLER, inmate #274-682; MARCUS SHANNON, inmate #281-148, Defendants.

No. 11-6055

TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 2

JAMES TICHNELL, Case Management Supervisor; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; LT. FRIEND, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01478-AW; 8:10-cv-01494-AW; 8:10-cv-02153-AW; 8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02523-AW)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges the district (2006) court's orders denying denying relief on his 42 of U.S.C. those

§ 1983

complaints,

reconsideration

orders, and denying Thomas' motions to compel discovery and for the appointment of counsel. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

See Thomas v. Middleton,

No. 8:10-cv-01478-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01494-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Huff, No. 8:10-cv-02153-AW (D. Md. Dec. 8 & Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Tichnell, No. 8:10-cv-02523-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2010). counsel. legal before We further deny Thomas' motions for the appointment of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED

4