Chase v. Peay
4th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by4
- 2025DePaola v. Scruggs D. Maryland
- 2024Hall v. Carter D. Maryland
- 2024Copez v. Pratt D. Maryland
- 2021Wood v. Jamaludeen E.D. Va.
Cites 1 statute
- Civil action for deprivation of rights
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Warren CHASE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Phlonda PEAY; Jack Kavanagh, Warden; David McKoy, (C.O.#2); Eric Thompson; Ronald Tolbert; Eness Brown, Lieutenant; Vanessa Willis, Sgt. Ms.; Keith Harris, Correctional Officer # 2 Mr.; Bernard Jones, Lieutenant Mr.; Frank Delbridge, Correctional Officer #2, Mr.; Benson Bell, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Samuel Lee, Major; Nicole Knox, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; Denise White, Sergeant; David Roane, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Eric Nelson, Sergeant; Charles Graham, Captain; Thomas Carter, Sergeant Mr.; Rodney Byrd, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Daryl Robinson, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Ernest Potee, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Amahl Foster, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Deborah Shifflett, Correctional Officer # 2, Ms.; George Braxton, Correctional Officer # 1, Mr.; Vincent Moore, Correctional Officer # 2, Mr.; Jehu Ragins, Mr., (C.O.# 2), Defendants—Appellees.
Judges
- Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Attorneys
- James E. Weaver, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph B. Tetrault, Prisoner Rights Information System, Chestertown, Maryland, for Appellant.
- J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, David P. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Warren Chase appeals a district court order granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court opinion and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chase v. Peay, 286 F.Supp.2d 523 (D.Md.2003). 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