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)
04-6018•Demetric Gray Pearson v. STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary
04-6018Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 26, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6018
DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary; CAPTAIN NEDER;
STEVEN ROACH; JEFF NIMES; DAVID LANCASTER,
Lieutenant; STEVE ZOLLNER; WILLIAM SONDERVAN,
Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
02-3647-8-RDB)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Demetric Gray Pearson 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Pearson v.
Simms, No. CA-02-3647-8-RDB (D. Md. filed Dec. 11, 2003 & entered
Dec. 12, 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.