Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lee v. O'Malley, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Reginald Lee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Baltimore city officials and police. The district court denied Lee relief, and the appeals court affirmed, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as stated in Lee v. O'Malley, No. 1:06-cv-01039-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2007). Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-10-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1369

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Reginald Lee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Baltimore city officials and police. The district court denied Lee relief, and the appeals court affirmed, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as stated in Lee v. O'Malley, No. 1:06-cv-01039-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2007). Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Lee v. O'Malley, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Reginald Lee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Baltimore city officials and police. The district court denied Lee relief, and the appeals court affirmed, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying relief as stated in Lee v. O'Malley, No. 1:06-cv-01039-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2007). Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-1369

    REGINALD LEE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARTIN OMALLEY, Baltimore City Mayor; SHEILA
    DIXON, President, Baltimore City Council;
    KEVIN CLARK, former Baltimore City Police
    Commissioner;
    THE
    BALTIMORE
    CITY
    POLICE
    DEPARTMENT; DAVE GREEN, Officer; JANE DOE,
    Officer; DORA DOE, Officer; DONNA DOE, in
    their individual and official capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
    (1:06-cv-01039-RDB)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2007

    Decided:

    October 5, 2007

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Reginald Lee, Appellant Pro Se.


    William Rowe Phelan, Jr.,
    BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick Donald
    Sheridan, BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Lee appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court.


    1:06-cv-01039-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2007).

    We have reviewed

    Lee v. OMalley, No.

    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