Baker v. District of Columbia

Fourth Circuit

Baker v. District of Columbia

54 F. App'x 160

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 7, 2003·No. No. 02-7665·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Todd Emerson Baker 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 Baker v. District of Columbia, No. CA-01-472-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered Sept. 30, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con[161] tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Todd Emerson Baker 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 Baker v. District of Columbia, No. CA-01-472-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered Sept. 30, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con[161] tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Baker v. District of Columbia, 54 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

54 F. App'x 160 (Baker v. District of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related