Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Pearson v. Franks, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Загружено:

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 просмотров2 страницы
    Demetric Gray Pearson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Pearson appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Исходное описание:

    Filed: 2006-05-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7185

    Авторское право

    © Public Domain

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Demetric Gray Pearson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Pearson appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Авторское право:

    Public Domain
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    19 просмотров2 страницы

    Pearson v. Franks, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Загружено:

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demetric Gray Pearson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Pearson appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Авторское право:

    Public Domain
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7185

    DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MITCHELL FRANKS, Warden; MARGARET CHIPPENDALE,
    F.A.; ROYCE MARSHALL, Property Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA05-1739-RDB)

    Submitted: May 16, 2006

    Decided: May 18, 2006

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    affirm

    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    district

    court.

    Pearson v. Franks, No. CA-05-1739-RDB (D. Md. July 5, 2005).

    See
    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 -

    Вам также может понравиться