Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Pearson v. Simms, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Demetric Gray Pearson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Maryland prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Pearson v. Simms, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Demetric Gray Pearson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Maryland prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6018

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Demetric Gray Pearson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Maryland prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding 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
    27 views2 pages

    Pearson v. Simms, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Demetric Gray Pearson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Maryland prison officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding 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. 04-6018

    DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary; CAPTAIN NEDER;
    STEVEN ROACH; JEFF NIMES; DAVID LANCASTER,
    Lieutenant; STEVE ZOLLNER; WILLIAM SONDERVAN,
    Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA02-3647-8-RDB)

    Submitted: February 19, 2004

    Decided:

    February 26, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, Stephanie Judith Lane
    Weber, 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).

    PER CURIAM:
    Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district courts 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 reasoning 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like