Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
23-7079•Wayne Arthur Jordan v. Thomas Seltzer
23-7079Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit24.10.2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7079
WAYNE ARTHUR JORDAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS SELTZER; WALTER WEST; VANESSA ANDERSON, Case
Management-Classification ECI; STEPHEN SANDERS; ROBERT L. GREEN,
Secretary-DPSCS; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; J. PHILLIP MORGAN; MARYLAND
CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-03048-GLR)
Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Arthur Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Arthur Jordan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
to Defendants on Jordan’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Jordan
v. Seltzer, No. 1:21-cv-03048-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2023). We also deny Jordan’s motion
to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.