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)
03-6356•George E. Carter-El v. Ben J. Ulep, M.d
03-6356Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 7, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6356
GEORGE E. CARTER-EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BEN J. ULEP, M.D.; WILLIS HULON, D.C. Monitor,
Sussex II State Prison; NURSE HOWELL,
Registered Nurse, Sussex II State Prison;
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor of the District of
Columbia; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden,
Sussex II State Prison; JAMILLA F. BURNEY,
Assistant Warden, Sussex II State Prison; MRS.
STANFORD, Administrator, Sussex II State
Prison; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-741)
Submitted: April 4, 2003 Decided: May 7, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
George E. Carter-El, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner,
WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia; Edward
Scott Rosenthal, Alexandria, Virginia; Christopher Garrett Hill,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George E. Carter-El appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Carter-El v. Ulep,
No. CA-02-741 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 10, 2003 & entered Feb. 14,
2003). 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.