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)
02-7757•Sylvester Crudup v. MARCIA SEAY, Grievance Coordinator/ Institutional Ombudsman
02-7757Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit26.02.2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7757
SYLVESTER CRUDUP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARCIA SEAY, Grievance Coordinator/
Institutional Ombudsman; S. HUGHES, Grievance,
Institutional Ombudsman; L. B. COLLINS, Inmate
Hearing Officer; K. ORIE, Correctional
Officer; W. BEST, Lieutenant, Correctional
Officer; A. NETHERLAND, Captain, Correctional
Officer; A. S. SCOTT, Captain, Correctional
Officer; J. KEITT, Captain, Correctional
Officer; L. BOOKER, Correctional Officer; S.
MOORE, Sergeant, Correctional Officer; A. L.
JOHNSON, Captain, Correctional Officer; W.
PENN, Correctional Officer; SUSAN CARSON,
Operations Officer; C. C. MURPHY, Assistant
Warden of Operations; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
Warden; W. P. ROGER, Regional Director; P. M.
HENICK, Regional Ombudsman,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-755-2)
Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Crudup, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Crudup appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this
appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. See Crudup v. Seay, No. CA-02-
755-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.