Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Copeland v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Terry Wendell Copeland v. William L. Smith et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Copeland's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Copeland v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Terry Wendell Copeland v. William L. Smith et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Copeland's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-05-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6095

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Terry Wendell Copeland v. William L. Smith et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Copeland's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    16 views2 pages

    Copeland v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Terry Wendell Copeland v. William L. Smith et al. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Copeland's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6095

    TERRY WENDELL COPELAND,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden, Maryland House of
    Corrections-Annex; WAYNE HILL, ARC - Administrative Remedy Coordinator; LOUIS RUZICKA,
    Captain; OFFICER KRETZER; OFFICER SCRIBER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-953336-AMD)
    Submitted:

    May 1, 1997

    Decided:

    May 8, 1997

    Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terry Wendell Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) 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.
    Copeland v. Smith, No. CA-95-3336-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 31, 1996). 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

    You might also like