Russell Smith v. Kristen Tyler, No. 11-6901 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6901 RUSSELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KRISTEN TYLER, Captain, State official, individually and in her official capacity as Captain Eastern Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT CLAYTON, State official, individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant Eastern Correctional Institution; SERGEANT COLOMA, State official, individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant Eastern Correctional Institution; OFFICER STACEY, State official, individually and in her official capacity as Correctional officer Eastern Correction Institution; KATHLEEN GREEN; PAUL ZIOLKOWSKI; JAMIE BALDERSON; SCOTT S. OAKLEY; LEONORA C. ADEGBESAN; MICHAEL J. STOUFFER; MICHAEL MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-01061-PJM) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. November 23, 2011 Russell Smith, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Russell denying relief Smith on his appeals 42 the U.S.C. district ยง 1983 (2006) court s orders complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Tyler, No. 8:09-cv-01061-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 15 & May 16, 2011). 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.
