The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-7129•Jamal A. Azeez v. NICHOLAS J. HUN, Commissioner of Corrections
00-7129Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 26, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7129
JAMAL A. AZEEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NICHOLAS J. HUN, Commissioner of Corrections;
WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden; CLINT SEMMLER, As-
sociate Warden; TERRY KYLE, Magistrate; BOYD
WYATT, Food Service Employee,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ROY WHITE, Medical Administrator,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-81-5)
Submitted: December 29, 2000 Decided: January 26, 2001
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Jamal A. Azeez, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Tyree, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia;
Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF COR-
RECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia; Anthony I. Werner, David
Leslie Delk, Jr., BACHMANN, HESS, BACHMANN & GARDEN, Wheeling, West
Virginia; Carlton Fisher, Victoria C. Priola, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamal A. Azeez appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s recommendation,
and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Azeez v. Hun, No. CA-97-81-5 (N.D.W. Va. filed Mar. 31, 1999,
entered Apr. 1, 1999; Dec. 16, 1999; & Aug. 4, 2000). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.