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)
03-7317•Steven E. Tarpley v. ROBERT J. KUPEC, Mr
03-7317Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 20, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7317
STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT J. KUPEC, Mr.; ROBERT D. RITCHEY; MS.
PULLER; BRUCE BOZMAN; T. MILLINER, Captain; G.
BARNES; DR. REEVES; A. TULL, Lieutenant;
LIEUTENANT HOLLAND; T. J. LEWIS, Officer;
GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS; MR. NASTRI; JOHN DOE,
Hearing Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-3461-WMN)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley 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
Tarpley v. Kupec, No. CA-02-3461-WMN (D. Md. July 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.