Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. MD Dept Pub Safety, 02-6088 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6088 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6088 LAWRENCE E. WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Ed. D., Commissioner (in his official and individual capacity), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-3779-H) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6088 LAWRENCE E. WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Ed. D., Commissioner (in his official and individual capacity), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-3779-H) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court that Williams’ claims lack merit. See Williams v. Maryland Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. CA-00-3779-H (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2001). 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