Pearson v. Simms

Fourth Circuit

Pearson v. Simms

88 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2004

Docket04-6018

StatusUnpublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 88 F. App'x 639 (Pearson v. Simms) 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

Pearson v. Simms, 88 F. App'x 639 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Demetric Gray Pearson 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 rea *640 soning of the district court. See Pearson v. Simms, No. CA-02-3647-8-RDB (D. Md. filed Dec. 11, 2003 & entered Dec. 12, 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

PER CURIAM.

Demetric Gray Pearson 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 rea *640 soning of the district court. See Pearson v. Simms, No. CA-02-3647-8-RDB (D. Md. filed Dec. 11, 2003 & entered Dec. 12, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-simms-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack