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)
05-6623•Keith Thomas v. WARDEN, Federal Detention Center in Alexandria
05-6623Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 30, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6623
KEITH THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Federal Detention Center in
Alexandria,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-6624
KEITH THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN DOE, standby counsel of the 20th
highjacker Mr. Moussaoui,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-247-1; CA-05-265-1)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 30, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Keith Thomas appeals the
district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaints for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the
records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Thomas v. Warden, CA-05-247-1 (E.D. Va., Mar. 16,
2005); Thomas v. Doe, CA-05-265-1 (E.D. Va., Mar. 22, 2005). We
deny Thomas’ motion for injunction. 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.