Carter-El v. Ulep

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 7, 2003
Docket03-6356
StatusUnpublished

This text of Carter-El v. Ulep (Carter-El v. Ulep) 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
Carter-El v. Ulep, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6356

GEORGE E. CARTER-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BEN J. ULEP, M.D.; WILLIS HULON, D.C. Monitor, Sussex II State Prison; NURSE HOWELL, Registered Nurse, Sussex II State Prison; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor of the District of Columbia; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden, Sussex II State Prison; JAMILLA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden, Sussex II State Prison; MRS. STANFORD, Administrator, Sussex II State Prison; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-741)

Submitted: April 4, 2003 Decided: May 7, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Carter-El, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Scott Rosenthal, Alexandria, Virginia; Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

George E. Carter-El 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 for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Carter-El v. Ulep,

No. CA-02-741 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 10, 2003 & entered Feb. 14,

2003). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carter-El v. Ulep, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-el-v-ulep-ca4-2003.