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)
02-6041•William H. Mathews v. Doctor Briggs
02-6041Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 6, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6041
WILLIAM H. MATHEWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR BRIGGS; MR. ROACH; L. FUENTES,
Dietician; ROSILIND WILSON; PRISON HEALTH
SERVICES; WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION;
DOCTOR TESSEMA; WARDEN GALLEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
00-3685-PJM)
Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Mathews, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Joseph Crawford,
ADELMAN, SHEFF & SMITH, Rockville, Maryland; John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William H. Mathews appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Mathews v. Briggs, No. CA-00-3685-PJM (D. Md.
filed Nov. 29, 2001 & entered Nov. 30, 2001). 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.