Page 236
Titus Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ajala, Sgt.; A. Yusut; Harris, Sgt.; Amaghionyeodiwe, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Justin Chaney, inmate # 348-112; Antonio Watson, inmate # 336-897; Terry Miller, inmate #274-682; Marcus Shannon, inmate # 281-148, Defendants. Titus Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Tichnell, Case Management Supervisor; P. Knight, Case Manager; Lt. Friend, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 10-7643, 10-7666, 10-7764, 11-6051, 11-6055.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: February 28, 2011.
Decided: March 9, 2011.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01478-AW; 8:10-cv-01494-AW; 8:10-cv-02153-AW; 8:10-cv-02090-AW; 8:10-cv-02523-AW).
Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Titus Thomas challenges the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints, denying reconsideration of those orders, and denying Thomas’ motions to compel discovery and for the appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thomas v. Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01478-AW, 2010 WL 4781360
(D.Md. Nov. 17 Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Middleton, No. 8:10-cv-01494-AW (D.Md. Nov. 17 Dec. 8, 2010); Thomas v. Huff, No. 8:10-cv-02153-AW, 2010 WL 5104820 (D.Md. Dec. 8 Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Ajala, No. 8:10-cv-02090-AW (D.Md. Dec. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Tichnell, No. 8:10-cv-02523-AW (D.Md. Dec. 29, 2010). We further deny Thomas’ motions for the appointment of counsel. 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.