Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. MD Dept Pub Safety, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lawrence E. Williams, Jr. against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The district court denied Williams relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error and that Williams' claims lacked merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-05-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6088

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lawrence E. Williams, Jr. against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The district court denied Williams relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error and that Williams' claims lacked merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Williams v. MD Dept Pub Safety, 4th Cir. (2002)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lawrence E. Williams, Jr. against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The district court denied Williams relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error and that Williams' claims lacked merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its decision.

    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. 02-6088

    LAWRENCE E. WILLIAMS, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
    AND
    CORRECTIONAL
    SERVICES;
    WILLIAM
    W.
    SONDERVAN, Ed. D., Commissioner (in his
    official and individual capacity),
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-00-3779-H)

    Submitted:

    May 16, 2002

    Decided:

    May 23, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
    Jr., Attorney General, 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:
    Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983
    (West Supp. 2001) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
    Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134 (1994).

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible


    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

    court that Williams claims lack merit.

    See Williams v. Maryland

    Dept of Pub. Safety, No. CA-00-3779-H (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2001).

    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