Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-6636•Bernard A. Tensley-Bey v. Doctor Ulep
02-6636Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit19.09.2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6636
BERNARD A. TENSLEY-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR ULEP; JO ANN MCCARTHY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-1449-AM)
Submitted: August 16, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Bernard A. Tensley-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney,
Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bernard A. Tensley-Bey appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tensley-Bey v.
Virginia, No. CA-00-1449-AM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 27, 2000, entered
Nov. 28, 2000; filed Apr. 9, 2002, entered Apr. 10, 2002). 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.