Brooks v. Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Brooks v. Maryland

55 F. App'x 160

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 2003·No. No. 02-7568·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

55 F. App'x 160 (Brooks v. Maryland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related