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)
02-7336•Earl Sand v. S. STEELE, Corrections Officer
02-7336Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit08.08.2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7336
EARL SAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. RICKS,
Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; DARLING,
Corrections Officer; B. MOHEAD, Inmate
Hearings Officer A,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-11-2)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: August 8, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl Sand, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Earl Sand 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 Sand v. Steele, No. CA-
01-11-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 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.