Warren Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Comm, No. 10-6094 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6094 WARREN CHASE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PRIOR AND PRESENT DOC COMMISSIONERS OF CORRECTIONS; KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Warden; TYRONE CROWDER; JOHN S. WOLFE; CALVIN WILSON; PATRICIA SHEARIN, Warden; D. HANSEN, Major; C. N. PEAY, Major; J. MAYFIELD, Lieutenant; T. DONNELL, Lieutenant; R. WALKER, Lieutenant; J. E. PRICE, Sergeant; M. MONTGOMERY, Sergeant; T. MARTIN, Sergeant; T. SMITH; T. BRAWNER, Sergeant; T. BROWN, Sergeant; D. MAYZCK, Sergeant; R. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. FLOID; D. WIGGINS, Sergeant; K. COOPER, Sergeant; T. RICHARDSON, Sergeant; H. TALIB, Sergeant; M. WINN, Sergeant; E. THOMPSON, Sergeant; S. PHILLIPS, Sergeant; A. SCOTT, Sergeant; D. GREEN, Sergeant; E. PULLEY, Sergeant; D. MANGUM, Sergeant; M. ROSS, Sergeant; D. OLIVER, Sergeant; D. CHASE, Sergeant; D. ALEXANDER, Sergeant; L. BATTLE, Sergeant; F. SMITH, Sergeant; B. STOLKS, Sergeant; J. A. BAILEY, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00834-CCB) Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Warren Chase appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.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 Chase s motion for injunctive relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chase v. The Prior and Present DOC Commissioners, No. 1:08-cv00834-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2009). We note Chase failed to indicate in his complaint that any specific Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his serious needs. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials See Smith v. We dispense with legal before contentions the court are 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.