Frankie McCoy, Sr. v. Patrick Conroy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:01-cv-01581-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999974534]. Mailed to: Frankie McCoy, Sr. [16-6659]

Appeal: 16-6659

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6659

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK CONROY, Warden; THOMAS CORCORAN, Ex-Warden; CHARLES
H. BRADBERRY, Case Manager; D. HOWARD, Case Manager; C.
ALTON, Case Manager; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants
are sued individual and official capacities,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
B. ALLEN, Supervisor Case Management,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:01-cv-01581-JFM)

Submitted:

October 25, 2016

Decided:

November 23, 2016

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6659

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6659

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Frankie
court

under

L.

McCoy,

the

Sr.,

filed

a

with

Disabilities

Americans

lawsuit

in

the
Act

district
and

the

Rehabilitation Act, claiming that the Defendants discriminated
against

him

on

account

of

his

physical

disabilities.

The

district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants on the
ground that McCoy settled the asserted claims in a settlement
agreement reached in a prior action.

McCoy now appeals.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

McCoy v. Conroy, No. 1:01-cv-01581-JFM (D. Md. filed

Apr. 15, 2016; entered Apr. 18, 2016).

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