Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Davis v. Nusbaum, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David A. Davis filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court's opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Davis relief on his § 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Davis v. Nusbaum, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) David A. Davis filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court's opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Davis relief on his § 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-09-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6766

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) David A. Davis filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court's opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Davis relief on his § 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Davis v. Nusbaum, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David A. Davis filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court's opinion and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Davis relief on his § 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6766

    DAVID A. DAVIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    HERBERT NUSBAUM, Officer, Commanding Officer
    II; RALPH BRADLE, Officer, Commanding Officer
    II, PAUL SHELTON, Officer, Commanding Officer
    II; M. KAETZEL, Officer, Commanding Officer
    II; BRIAN W. CUSTER, Officer, Commanding Officer I; JOSEPH P. SACCTEH, Warden; DONALD
    HORNING, Warden; RODERICK R. SOWERS, Chief,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-3777-S)

    Submitted:

    September 9, 1999

    Decided:

    September 15, 1999

    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    David A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,
    Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David A. Davis appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the districts opinion and find no
    reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

    district court. See Davis v. Nusbaum, No. CA-98-3777-S (D. Md. May
    26, 1999).

    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