Emmanuel Sewell v. John Rowley, No. 10-6463 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6463 EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden; IAMES, Correctional Officer; RALEY, Correctional Officer; MCKENZIE, Correctional Officer; SHOEMAKER, Correctional Officer; ADAMS, Correctional Officer; WALKER, Correctional Officer; HOUSE, Correctional Officer; WERNER, Sergeant; WHITEMAN, Sergeant; SPEIR, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:09-cv-00693-DKC) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip M. Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district Sewell v. Rowley, No. 8:09-cv-00693-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 18, court. 2010). We counsel. legal before further deny Sewell s motion for appointment of 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 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.