Stewart v. Leak

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 17, 2004
Docket04-6240
StatusUnpublished

This text of Stewart v. Leak (Stewart v. Leak) 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
Stewart v. Leak, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6240

MAURICE BERNARD STEWART, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MISS LEAK, Employee of (Cantine) Private Food Contractor in Her Official and Personal Capacity; MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary of State; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; SEWALL SMITH, Warden; TYRONE CROWDER, Captain; SIMON WAINWRIGHT, Chief of Security; LONG, Major; PRESBURY, Captain; DONNA HANSON, Captain; WILSON, Lt.; WISE, Captain; LAWSON, Lt.; NELSON, Lt.; WOODRUM, Lt.; STRIKE, Captain; MCFARLAND, Lt.; PARRIS DAVIS, Lt.; CARTER, Lt.; JEFFERSON, Lt.; HOLMES, Lt.; PEAY, Lt.; STEWART, Lt.; OWENS, Lt.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-1686-JFM-1)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Bernard Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Maurice Bernard Stewart, Jr., 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 Stewart v. Leak, No. CA-03-1686-JFM-1 (D. Md.

Jan. 14, 2004). 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

- 3 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stewart v. Leak, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-leak-ca4-2004.