Emmanuel Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-02656-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999626158]. Mailed to: Emmanuel Edward Sewell. [15-6316]

Appeal: 15-6316

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6316

EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; WARDEN BOBBY
SHEARIN; MAJOR MELLOTT; CAPTAIN STOTLER; M. YACENCH; LT. DALE
SMITH; LT. GEORGE MCALPINE; LIEUTENANT MANUEL; J. GARY SINDY;
SERGEANT FORNEY; L.O. MILLER; LT. R. FRITZ; LIEUTENANT THOMAS;
J.R. MALLOW; G. MALLOW; LOWERY; J. HARTMAN; D.S. CAPLE; D.
MICHAEL; J.E. WIEMER; C. PRESTON; J. WILT; S. LIPSCOMB;
OFFICER WILSON; J.W. REIEKE; J. FARRIS; RYAN KALBAUGH; CRAIG
PETERS; LUKE GIRVIN; OFFICER ORT; OFFICER VETORAE; D.
SYVERSTAD; M. KISNER; M.E. PRICE; A. LODGSON; D.J. SMITH;
ROMESBURG; M. BUCHOLTZ,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02656-DKC)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Dorianne Avery Meloy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

Appeal: 15-6316

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6316

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012)

complaint.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Sewell v. Office of the Attorney Gen.

of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2015).

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

3