David Washington v. Timothy Stewart
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000098893-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03181-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: David N. Washington FMC DEVENS FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 879 Ayer, MA 01432-0879. [17-6289]--[Edited 10/20/2017 by MFT]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DAVID N. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
TIMOTHY STEWART, Warden, FCI Cumberland, Sued in Official & Individual
Capacity; MOHAMED MOUBAREK, Clinical Director, FCI Cumberland, Sued in
Official & Individual Capacity; KRISTI CRITES, CRNP, FCI Cumberland, Sued in
Official & Individual Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-03181-DKC)
Submitted: August 31, 2017
Decided: October 20, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David N. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Vickie Elaine LeDuc, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
David N. Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v.
Stewart, No. 8:15-cv-03181-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2017).
We deny Washington’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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.
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?