Butchie J. Stemple v. Bobby P. Shearin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999573848-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01739-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999630160]. Mailed to: Stemple. [15-6216]

Appeal: 15-6216

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6216

BUTCHIE J. STEMPLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY P. SHEARIN,
LAMP, Chaplain,

Warden;

KEITH

K.

ARNOLD,

Chief;

KEVIN

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-01739-ELH)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

July 29, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Butchie J. Stemple, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6216

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Butchie

J.

Stemple

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment to Appellees on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012)

claims.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we deny Stemple’s motion for

appointment of counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning
of the district court. *

Stemple v. Shearin, No.

ELH (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2015).

1:14-cv-01739-

We 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

*

Although Stemple’s claim for equitable relief may not have
been barred by Appellees’ qualified immunity, see Wall v. Wade,
741 F.3d 492, 497 n.9 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that qualified
immunity is inapplicable to claims for equitable relief), we
conclude that the claim nevertheless fails on the merits.
See
Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.
1992) (“[W]e may affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on
the record.”).
See generally Wall, 741 F.3d at 498-99
(providing test for determining when prison policy violates
First Amendment).

2