John Fishback v. Bobby Shearin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00612-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998977487]. Mailed to: Fishback. [12-6834, 12-7137]

Appeal: 12-6834

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6834

JOHN W. FISHBACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst.
Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and
Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES,
CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION
AND
ROXBURY
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN A. ROWLEY,
Defendant.

No. 12-7137

JOHN W. FISHBACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst.
Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and
Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES,
CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH

Appeal: 12-6834

Doc: 12

CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,

Filed: 11/08/2012

INSTITUTION

Pg: 2 of 3

AND

ROXBURY

CORRECTIONAL

Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN A. ROWLEY,
Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00612-JFM)

Submitted:

October 25, 2012

Decided:

November 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John W. Fishback, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6834

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John W. Fishback appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motions and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006)

complaint.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Fishback v. Shearin, No. 1:11-cv-

00612-JFM (D. Md. June 15, 2012; Apr. 3, 2012).

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

3