Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Chairperson MD Parol, 03-7369 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7369 Visitors: 28
Filed: Dec. 05, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7369 CHARLES JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHAIRPERSON OF THE MARYLAND PAROLE BOARD; JANE DOE, Parole Hearing Commissioner/John Doe; M. M. WILLIAMS, Parole Hearing Commissioner, Mr.; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Mr. Dr.; PATRICIA PHELPS SCHUPPLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7369 CHARLES JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHAIRPERSON OF THE MARYLAND PAROLE BOARD; JANE DOE, Parole Hearing Commissioner/John Doe; M. M. WILLIAMS, Parole Hearing Commissioner, Mr.; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Mr. Dr.; PATRICIA PHELPS SCHUPPLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 03-615-1-RDB) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, Joseph A. Curran, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jones v. Chairperson of the Md. Parole Bd., No. CA-03-615-1-RDB (D. Md. filed July 25, 2003; entered July 28, 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer