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)
03-7415•John Wayne McLaughlin-Cox v. Maryland Parole Commission
03-7415Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 16, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7415
JOHN WAYNE MCLAUGHLIN-COX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-02-4204-MJG)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 16, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John McLaughlin-Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John McLaughlin-Cox 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
McLaughlin-Cox v. Maryland Parole Comm’n, No. CA-02-4204-MJG (D.
Md. Aug. 15, 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.