Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. State of MD, 03-6675 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6675 Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6675 DELONTE E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART O. SIMMS, Esquire, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services of the State of Maryland; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections, State of Maryland; RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, I, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6675 DELONTE E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART O. SIMMS, Esquire, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services of the State of Maryland; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections, State of Maryland; RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, I, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, II, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, III, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-4039-JFM) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delonte E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Delonte E. Taylor 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 Taylor v. Maryland, No. CA-02-4039-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 25, 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