Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bailey-El v. Corcoran, 04-6331 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6331 Visitors: 38
Filed: Nov. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6331 RONALD G. BAILEY-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ALBERT CURTIS MILLS; ANTHONY GRANDISON; MARCUS MANDEL ELLIS; CHARLES ROBIN WOODS; JAMES M. LOMAX; DWAYNE DOUCETT; ANTONIO DONOTEA HARRELL, Plaintiffs, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; FRANK SIZER, JR.; WILLIAM SONDERVAN; FRANCHESCA BRIGHT; JAMES SMITH, Security Chief, Defendants - Appellees, and DONNA HANSEN, Lieutenant; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART SIMMS;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6331 RONALD G. BAILEY-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ALBERT CURTIS MILLS; ANTHONY GRANDISON; MARCUS MANDEL ELLIS; CHARLES ROBIN WOODS; JAMES M. LOMAX; DWAYNE DOUCETT; ANTONIO DONOTEA HARRELL, Plaintiffs, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; FRANK SIZER, JR.; WILLIAM SONDERVAN; FRANCHESCA BRIGHT; JAMES SMITH, Security Chief, Defendants - Appellees, and DONNA HANSEN, Lieutenant; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART SIMMS; GEORGE B. BROSAN; DOUGLAS CLOMAN; JACK KAVANAGH; BRENDA BERTRAM; CINDY KOMENDA, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-00-746-DKC) Submitted: September 22, 2004 Decided: November 2, 2004 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Bailey-El, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ronald G. Bailey-El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims relating to the denial of access to the courts. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bailey-El v. Corcoran, No. CA-00-746-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2003; filed Feb. 3, 2004 & entered Feb. 4, 2004; Apr. 16, 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