Wright v. Sondervan

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 2005
Docket04-7910
StatusUnpublished

This text of Wright v. Sondervan (Wright v. Sondervan) 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
Wright v. Sondervan, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7910

CURTIS L. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in her individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity; SEWALL SMITH, Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3378-WDQ)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Curtis L. Wright 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 substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Wright v. Sondervan, No. CA-03-3378-WDQ (D. Md. filed Nov. 3,

2004; entered Nov. 4, 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)
Wright v. Sondervan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-sondervan-ca4-2005.