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)
01-6509•Shawn Christopher Taylor v. MARK HENRY, Warden
01-6509Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 29, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6509
SHAWN CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARK HENRY, Warden; STEPHEN FINGER, Admin-
istrative Remedy Coordinator; WILLIAM EY,
Captain; SUSAN CRUMP, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT
GRIENER; LIEUTENANT BRIGHT, S.I.S.; LIEUTENANT
CASTRO, S.I.S.; WILLIAM BROWN, Education
Administrator; R. COSGROVE, Education; sued in
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
99-1810-CCB)
Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn Christopher Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew
Schenning, United States Attorney, Larry David Adams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shawn C. Taylor appeals from the district court’s order deny-
ing relief in his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Taylor v. Henry, No. CA-99-1810-CCB (D. Md. June
19, 2000 & Feb. 20, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials 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.