# Costley v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 8, 2001 · 8 F. App'x 272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004334

## Case

- **Full name:** Nathaniel M. COSTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BROWN, Sheriff; Mason Waters, Warden; Steven Turvin, Captain; William Tomas, Lieutenant; B.E. Burk, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Poiregoies; Corporal Stansbury; R. Ruby, Corporal, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 8, 2001
- **Citations:** 8 F. App'x 272
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Wilkins, Motz
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004334

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6823

NATHANIEL M. COSTLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN BROWN, Sheriff; MASON WATERS, Warden;
STEVEN TURVIN, Captain; WILLIAM TOMAS, Lieu-
tenant; B. E. BURK, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT
POIREGOIES; CORPORAL STANSBURY; R. RUBY,
Corporal,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-1274-DKC)

Submitted: April 10, 2001 Decided: May 8, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel M. Costley, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski,
ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel M. Costley appeals the district court’s orders deny-

ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Costley v. Brown, No. CA-98-1274-DKC

(D. Md. Nov. 16, 1998; Aug. 5, 1999; & filed Mar. 3, 2000; entered

Mar. 6, 2000). Costley’s motion for preparation of a transcript is

denied. 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004334. Public record. Not legal advice.