Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Corey James v. MD Division of Correction, 13-6595 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6595 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6595 COREY LAMONDE JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, and AARON LITTLE FRENCH, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; CHAPLAIN LAMP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cv-03301-CCB; 1:11-cv-02142-CCB) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6595 COREY LAMONDE JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, and AARON LITTLE FRENCH, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; CHAPLAIN LAMP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:11-cv-03301-CCB; 1:11-cv-02142-CCB) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Lamonde James, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Corey Lamonde James appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. James v. Maryland Div. of Corr., Nos. 1:11-cv-03301-CCB, 1:11-cv-02142-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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