Brooks v. Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Brooks v. Maryland

55 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 2003

DocketNo. 02-7568

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 F. App'x 160 (Brooks v. Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Maryland, 55 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alec Rodney Brooks 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 Brooks v. Maryland, No. CA-02-494-MJG (D.Md. Sept. 30, 2002). 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alec Rodney Brooks 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 Brooks v. Maryland, No. CA-02-494-MJG (D.Md. Sept. 30, 2002). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-maryland-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack