Debardeleben v. Black

5 F. App'x 302
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 2001
Docket00-7596
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 F. App'x 302 (Debardeleben v. Black) 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
Debardeleben v. Black, 5 F. App'x 302 (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James M. Debardeleben appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Debardeleben v. Black, No. CA-00-2391-WMN (D.Md. filed Sept. 7, 2000; entered Sept. 8, 2000). Debardeleben’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief is denied, and his motion for decision is denied as moot. 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

Debardeleben v. Pugh
85 F. App'x 142 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 F. App'x 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debardeleben-v-black-ca4-2001.