Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Revels v. Shockley, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Joseph Samuel Revels in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as presented in Revels v. Shockley, No. CA-02-3549-1-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2003). The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6511

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Joseph Samuel Revels in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as presented in Revels v. Shockley, No. CA-02-3549-1-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2003). The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views2 pages

    Revels v. Shockley, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Joseph Samuel Revels in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as presented in Revels v. Shockley, No. CA-02-3549-1-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2003). The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6511

    JOSEPH SAMUEL REVELS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    IRA SHOCKLEY, Warden and others;
    GENERAL HOSPITAL and others,

    ATLANTIC
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-3549-1-WMN)

    Submitted:

    June 12, 2003

    Decided:

    June 18, 2003

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph
    ALLEN,
    Booth,
    Awalt,

    Samuel Revels, Appellant Pro Se.


    Kevin Bock Karpinski,
    KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland; Curtis Henry
    COWDREY, THOMPSON & KARSTEN, Annapolis, Maryland; Stephen B.
    JENKINS & AWALT, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph

    Samuel

    Revels

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    order

    We have

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we

    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Revels v.

    Shockley, No. CA-02-3549-1-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 13, 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

    You might also like