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)
03-6734•Richard P. Brendoff v. Sergeant Nelson
03-6734Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 27, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6734
RICHARD P. BRENDOFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT NELSON; C. LEE HASKINS, Sergeant;
GREGORY MADDOX, Lieutenant; CORPORAL OTIS;
CORPORAL FLINT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00-
331-AMD)
Submitted: September 24, 2003 Decided: October 27, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ward B. Coe, III, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General,
Stephanie 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Brendoff appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000) complaint alleging excessive use of force in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Brendoff v. Nelson, No. CA-00-331-AMD (D.
Md. Mar. 31, 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.