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)
16-1573•Brandon Watson v. City of Aberdeen
16-1573Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit29.11.2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1573
BRANDON WATSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ABERDEEN; ABERDEEN POLICE DEPARTMENT; PFC. RAUL
FOSMARK; DETECTIVE JOHN DIVEL; CPL. CRAIG GENTILE; HARRY
FREDRICK BUDNICK; OFFICER THADDEUS TOMLINSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00307-JKB)
Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay Fred Cohen, LAW OFFICES OF JAY FRED COHEN, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI &
KARP, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Watson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Watson v. Aberdeen, No. 1:15-cv-00307-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 25,
2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this 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.