Anthony Kelly v. Frank Bishop


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000005644-2]; denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999970258-2], denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999964947-2], denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999964942-2]; denying Motion to reconsider [999970229-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-03795-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000030206]. Mailed to: Anthony Kelly. [16-7399]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7399 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7399 ANTHONY QUENTIN KELLY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03795-RDB) Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Quentin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7399 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim. We reversible error. have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2016). Kelly v. Bishop, No. 1:15-cv-03795-RDB We deny Kelly’s motions to participate in oral argument, to reconsider, and to appoint counsel. dispense with contentions are no oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?