Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wright v. Sondervan, 04-7910 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7910 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7910 CURTIS L. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in her individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7910 CURTIS L. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in her individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity; SEWALL SMITH, Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3378-WDQ) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Curtis L. Wright 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 substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wright v. Sondervan, No. CA-03-3378-WDQ (D. Md. filed Nov. 3, 2004; entered Nov. 4, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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