Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leonard Denkert v. Doctor Patterson Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, Leonard Denkert v. Doctor Patterson Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, 93-6221 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6221 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 23, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 996 F.2d 1210 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Leonard DENKERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor PATTERSON; Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, Defendants-Appellees. Leonard DENKERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor PATTERSON; Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 93-6
More

996 F.2d 1210

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Leonard DENKERT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Doctor PATTERSON; Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, Defendants-Appellees.
Leonard DENKERT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Doctor PATTERSON; Doctor Christiane Tellefsen, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 93-6221, 93-6422.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 7, 1993.
Decided: June 23, 1993.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-93-549-L, CA-93-856-L)

Leonard Denkert, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Leonard Denkert appeals from the district court's orders denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988).* Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Denkert v. Patterson, Nos. CA-93-549-L, CA-93-856-L (D. Md. Mar. 1, & Apr. 16, 1993). 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

*

Denkert filed two complaints in the district court challenging state hospital rules prohibiting possession of a pocket computer (No. 93-6221) and prohibiting patients from borrowing copies of the hospital regulations (No. 93-6422). We consolidated these actions on appeal

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