Titus Thomas v. Sergeant Middleton, No. 10-7643 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7643 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER GERAGHTY; IMANI THOMAS, Inmate #340-968; SERGEANT MIDDLETON, GREEN, Inmate JUSTIN CHANEY, #337-646; JESSE Inmate #348-112; Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-7666 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT MIDDLETON; OFFICER FRAS; OFFICER KENDALL; CAPTAIN WALLS (MCTC), Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-7764 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT HUFF; SERGEANT R. LIKIN; SERGEANT JOHN IHEOMA; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; JESSE THOMAS, Inmate; DONALD FOSTER, Inmate; JUSTIN CHANEY, Inmate; WILLIAM COOL, Inmate; TERRY MILLER, Inmate, Defendants - Appellees. v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Party-in-Interest. No. 11-6051 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AJALA, Sgt.; Officer, A. YUSUT; HARRIS, Sgt.; AMAGHIONYEODIWE, Defendants Appellees, and JUSTIN CHANEY, inmate #348-112; ANTONIO WATSON, inmate #336897; TERRY MILLER, inmate #274-682; MARCUS SHANNON, inmate #281-148, Defendants. No. 11-6055 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 2 JAMES TICHNELL, Case Management Supervisor; P. KNIGHT, Case Manager; LT. FRIEND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01478-AW; 8:10-cv-01494-AW; 8:10-cv-02153-AW; 8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02523-AW) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges the district § 1983 (2006) court s orders complaints, denying denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. reconsideration of those orders, and denying Thomas motions to compel discovery and for the appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, no reversible error. reasons stated by the district court. we affirm for the See Thomas v. Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01478-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01494-AW (D. Md. Nov. 17 & Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Huff, No. 8:10-cv-02153-AW (D. Md. Dec. 8 & Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Tichnell, No. 8:10-cv-02523-AW (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2010). We further deny Thomas motions for the appointment of counsel. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.