Luecretia Owens-El v. Lieutenant Kapfhammer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-03213-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246622]. Mailed to: Luecretia Owens-El. [13-1474]

Appeal: 13-1474

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1474

LUECRETIA DAWN OWENS-EL, f/k/a Luecretia Dawn McNair-Bey;
CHE' QUADAFFI WILLIAMS-EL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LIEUTENANT KAPFHAMMER; GEORGE GITHARA, Officer; CHRISTIAN V.
KAIKAI, Officer; JOSEPH LANDSMAN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE
#5; JOHN DOE #6, Office all of and from the Western District
Police Station for the Baltimore City Police Department; D.
M. ROSS, Sergeant,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-03213-JFM)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

November 25, 2013

Appeal: 13-1474

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Luecretia Dawn Owens-El, Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El, Appellants
Pro Se. Michael Lawrence Marshall, SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER,
PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Suzanne Sangree, BALTIMORE CITY LAW
DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1474

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Luecretia Dawn Owens-El and Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

Owens-El v. Kapfhammer,

No. 1:10-cv-03213-JFM (D. Md. filed Mar. 8, 2013, entered Mar.
11, 2013; Aug. 22, 2012; filed May 13, 2011, entered May 16,
2011).

We grant the motion for an extension of time, deny the

motion

for

appointment

of

counsel

and

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3