Emmanuel Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General, No. 15-6316 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6316 EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; MAJOR MELLOTT; CAPTAIN STOTLER; M. YACENCH; LT. DALE SMITH; LT. GEORGE MCALPINE; LIEUTENANT MANUEL; J. GARY SINDY; SERGEANT FORNEY; L.O. MILLER; LT. R. FRITZ; LIEUTENANT THOMAS; J.R. MALLOW; G. MALLOW; LOWERY; J. HARTMAN; D.S. CAPLE; D. MICHAEL; J.E. WIEMER; C. PRESTON; J. WILT; S. LIPSCOMB; OFFICER WILSON; J.W. REIEKE; J. FARRIS; RYAN KALBAUGH; CRAIG PETERS; LUKE GIRVIN; OFFICER ORT; OFFICER VETORAE; D. SYVERSTAD; M. KISNER; M.E. PRICE; A. LODGSON; D.J. SMITH; ROMESBURG; M. BUCHOLTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02656-DKC) Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Dorianne Avery Meloy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sewell v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.