Frankie McCoy, Sr. v. Maryland Department of Public Safety, No. 17-7028 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7028 FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, (“DPSCS”); GARY MAYNARD, Secretary, DPSCS; GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Secretary, DPSCS; COMMISSIONER STOUFFER; DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden; LAURA ARMSTEAD, Assistant Warden; CEO OF MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES, Shiloh; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BIVENS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NIVENS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WASHINGTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HENRY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OSLES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GATEWOOD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KRAMO; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAUGHTERY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAILEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLIGGINS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MACKALL; SOCIAL WORKER REMBRAUNDAT; SOCIAL WORKER CARYA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00090-JFM) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frankie McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action asserting claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 7961 (West 2008 & Supp. 2017); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012); and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McCoy v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:16-cv-00090-JFM (D. Md. July 28, 2017). We grant McCoy’s motion to amend/correct his informal brief. 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

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.