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)
04-7065•Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, a/k/a James A. Smith, a/k/a James Smith v. L. W. HUFFMAN, Regional Director of the Northern Region of the Virginia Department…
04-7065Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.02.2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7065
YAQUB HAMEED MUWAKKIL, a/k/a James A. Smith,
a/k/a James Smith,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
L. W. HUFFMAN, Regional Director of the
Northern Region of the Virginia Department of
Corrections (VDOC); LISA T. EDWARDS, Warden;
DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; WARDEN
SPENCE; UNIT MANAGER EVERETTE; DAVIS,
Correctional Officer; WARDEN WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-570-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2005
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil appeals from the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000) action. We have carefully reviewed the record and
the arguments on appeal, and we find no error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders for the reasons stated by the
district court. Muwakkil v. Huffman, No. CA-01-570-2 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 16, 2002; July 10 & Sept. 30, 2003; May 25, 2004). We deny
Muwakkil’s motions to stay and for production of documents. 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.