Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke, 13-7056 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7056 Visitors: 79
Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7056 BRADLEY MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; JAMES PARKS; GEORGE HINKLE; GREGORY HALLOWAY; DAVID ZOOK; R.C. MATHENA; DENNIS COLLINS; T. FARRIS; B. D. COLLINS; J. W. CARICO; C. L. STACY; R. C. WILLIAMS; H. R. HENSLEY; M. COUNTS; BRENDA RAVIZER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7056 BRADLEY MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE; JAMES PARKS; GEORGE HINKLE; GREGORY HALLOWAY; DAVID ZOOK; R.C. MATHENA; DENNIS COLLINS; T. FARRIS; B. D. COLLINS; J. W. CARICO; C. L. STACY; R. C. WILLIAMS; H. R. HENSLEY; M. COUNTS; BRENDA RAVIZER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00477-JLK-RSB) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bradley Maxwell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Maxwell v. Clarke, No. 7:12-cv-00477- JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. June 13, 2013). We deny Maxwell’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 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