Emmanuel Sewell v. J. Stouffer, No. 12-6700 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6700 EMMANUEL E. SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; BOBBY P. SHEARIN; RICHARD R. GRAHAM; LIEUTENANT J. L. HARBAUGH; LIEUTENANT D. DURST; LIEUTENANT YACHENCH; LIEUTENANT HAGGARD; SERGEANT SIMMONS; SERGEANT R. R. SHANK; SERGEANT R. H. LIPHOLD, JR.; SERGEANT LANCASTER; SERGEANT G. B. MCALPINE; SERGEANT M. BULGER; SERGEANT D. L. SMITH; SERGEANT MCKENZIE; L. GIRVIN, CO II; P. DEIST, CO II; J. A. FRIEND, CO II; R. KEEFER, CO II; J. W. PRITTS, CO II; KISNER, CO II; R. R. HOLLINS, CO II; T. A. MELLOT, CO II; KENNELL, J.A., CO II; PETERS, CO II; KALBAUGH; M. HUBNER; SMITH; JODI STOUFFER; TINA M. GERAGHTY; SUSIE CUNNINGHAM; SHARON BAUCOM; MARY JOE SABETTELLI; DR. BEN OTEYZA; DR. MAJID ARNAOUT; P.A. GREG FLURY; NURSE STEVE BRAY; NURSE AFRICA; NURSE CHRISTINA B.; NURSE JANICE GILMORE; DR. JAMES HOLWAGER; SHERRY HEFFERCAMP; LAURA MOULDEN; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants Appellees, and WARDEN; STEPHEN Z. MEEHAN; JOSEPH B. TETRAULT; PAULINE K. WHITE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:11-cv-00614-DKC) Submitted: October 15, 2012 Decided: October 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel E. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel E. Sewell appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sewell v. Stouffer, No. 8:11-cv-00614-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2012). We deny Sewell s pending motions. 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 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.