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)
04-7910•Curtis L. Wright v. WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner
04-7910Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 21, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7910
CURTIS L. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former
Commissioner of Maryland Division of
Corrections, sued in his individual and
official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy
Commissioner of Maryland Division of
Corrections, sued in her individual and
official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former
Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment
Center, sued in his individual and official
capacity; SEWALL SMITH, Warden of the Maryland
Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-3378-WDQ)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Curtis L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. Wright 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 substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
See Wright v. Sondervan, No. CA-03-3378-WDQ (D. Md. filed Nov. 3,
2004; entered Nov. 4, 2004). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.