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)
05-6171•Carnell Hunnicutt v. William Sondervan
05-6171Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit08.04.2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6171
CARNELL HUNNICUTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM SONDERVAN; FRANK SIZER, JR.; PATRICK
CONROY; HAROLD AXELROD; JAMES PEGUESE; JON
GALLEY; CAPTAIN REITZEL; CALVIN JONES; R.
WILLS; T. L. RIGGLEMAN, being sued in their
official and individual capacities; STATE OF
MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; W. T. MULLEN; NANCY
WILLIAMS; SHAVELLA WATKINS; MARY ANN SAAR, all
being sued in their official and individual
capacities; STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-
2073-1-AMD)
Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carnell Hunnicutt, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carnell Hunnicutt appeals a district court order granting
the Defendants summary judgment and dismissing his complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (2000). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and
memorandum and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
See Hunnicutt v. Maryland Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-04-2073-1-AMD (D.
Md. Jan. 19, 2005). 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.