John Fishback v. Bobby Shearin, No. 12-6834 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6834 JOHN W. FISHBACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendants Appellees, and JOHN A. ROWLEY, Defendant. No. 12-7137 JOHN W. FISHBACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL Defendants Appellees, and JOHN A. ROWLEY, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00612-JFM) Submitted: October 25, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John W. Fishback, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John W. Fishback appeals the district court s orders denying his motions and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fishback v. Shearin, No. 1:11-cv- 00612-JFM (D. Md. June 15, 2012; Apr. 3, 2012). 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.