Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views2 pages
    1) Bradley Maxwell filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging religious freedom and constitutional violations. 2) The district court denied Maxwell relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Maxwell's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the briefs and argument would not aid the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7056

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Bradley Maxwell filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging religious freedom and constitutional violations. 2) The district court denied Maxwell relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Maxwell's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the briefs and argument would not aid the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Bradley Maxwell v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Bradley Maxwell filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging religious freedom and constitutional violations. 2) The district court denied Maxwell relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Maxwell's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the briefs and argument would not aid the decision.

    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. 13-7056

    BRADLEY MAXWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE; JAMES PARKS; GEORGE HINKLE; GREGORY HALLOWAY;
    DAVID ZOOK; R.C. MATHENA; DENNIS COLLINS; T. FARRIS; B. D.
    COLLINS; J. W. CARICO; C. L. STACY; R. C. WILLIAMS; H. R.
    HENSLEY; M. COUNTS; BRENDA RAVIZER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:12-cv-00477-JLK-RSB)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    THACKER,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    September 27, 2013

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bradley Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bradley

    Maxwell

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C.


    1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
    Persons Act (RLUIPA).
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    Maxwell v. Clarke, No. 7:12-cv-00477-

    JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. June 13, 2013).


    appoint
    facts

    counsel

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    and

    dispense

    We deny Maxwells motion to

    with

    oral

    argument

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    because

    presented

    would

    not

    the

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like