Titus Thomas v. Ajala

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-02090-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998665353]. Mailed to: Thomas. [11-6298, 11-6599]

Appeal: 11-6298

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/29/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6298

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. 11-6599

TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G.L. WILSON, Officer; D. KRAMPT, Officer; R.C. ALLISON,
Officer; T. MENGUS, Officer; OFFICER HENDERSON; TERRY
MILLER, Inmate ID 274-682; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate ID 348-112;
GARY ANDERSON, Inmate ID 344-943; IMANI GREEN, Inmate ID
337-646,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal: 11-6298

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/29/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02003-AW)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

August 29, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6298

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/29/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges
the

district

court’s

orders

denying

relief

§ 1983 (2006) civil rights complaints.
record

and

conclude

that

there

is

on

his

42

U.S.C.

We have reviewed the
no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
See Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D. Md. Feb.

court.

23, 2011); Thomas v. Wilson, No. 8:10-cv-02003-AW (D. Md. Jan.
20, 2011).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3