Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Mayberry v. John Doe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Carlos Mayberry's appeal of a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order denying relief on Mayberry's § 1983 complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mayberry v. John Doe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Carlos Mayberry's appeal of a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order denying relief on Mayberry's § 1983 complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7634

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Carlos Mayberry's appeal of a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order denying relief on Mayberry's § 1983 complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    Mayberry v. John Doe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Carlos Mayberry's appeal of a district court ruling denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order denying relief on Mayberry's § 1983 complaint.

    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. 04-7634

    CARLOS R. MAYBERRY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus

    JOHN DOE #1, Commissioner of Anne Arundel


    County District Court; JOHN DOE #2, Second
    Commissioner of Anne Arundel County District
    Court,
    individually
    in
    their
    official
    capacity; JOHN SWIVEL, Case Manager,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA04-2998)

    Submitted:

    January 27, 2005

    Decided:

    February 4, 2005

    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carlos R. Mayberry appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28
    U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000).
    find no reversible error.
    of the district court.

    We have reviewed the record and

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    See Mayberry v. John Doe #1, No. CA-04-2998

    (D. Md. filed Sept. 29, 2004 & entered Sept. 30, 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like