John Schlamp v. Prince George's County, Maryla, No. 08-2147 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2147 JOHN RYAN SCHLAMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; ISMAEL CANALES, Detective #1891, Prince George's County Police Department, Defendants Appellees, and GLENN F. IVEY, Prince George's County States Attorney's Office; FRANCIS LONGWELL, Prince George's County States Attorney's Office; ELAINE MOORE, Captain, Prince George's County Police Department; BUTLER, Corporal #1891, Prince George's County Police Department; MELVIN C. HIGH, Chief of Police, Prince George's County Police Department; STEPHEN C. ORENSTEIN, Legal Advisor, Prince George's County Police Department; RONALD SCHIFF, Judge, Prince George's County Courts; ROSS BOGASH, PFC, University of Maryland Police; MARY BROCK, Corp., University of Maryland Police Department, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01644-DKC) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Ryan Schlamp, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Ryan Schlamp appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we deny Schlamp's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Schlamp v. Prince George's County, Maryland, No. 1:06-cv-01644DKC (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2008). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We decline to consider issues Schlamp raises for the first time on appeal. 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.