Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ryidu-X v. MD Division of Corr, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu-X's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its May 2004 ruling. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-10-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6982

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu-X's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its May 2004 ruling. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Ryidu-X v. MD Division of Corr, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu-X's appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Maryland Division of Correction and other defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its May 2004 ruling. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    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. 04-6982

    MALCOLM MAXWELL RYIDU-X,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus

    MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; WILLIAM W.


    SONDERVAN, Commission of Corrections; THOMAS
    R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland Correctional
    Adjustment Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-02-692-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    October 14, 2004

    Decided:

    October 20, 2004

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu-X, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane


    Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Malcolm Maxwell Ryidu-X appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See Ryidu-X v. Maryland Div. of Corr., No. CA-02-692-WDQ

    (D. Md. filed May 13, 2004 & entered May 14, 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