The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-1108•Judy Kay Miskell v. Harry L. Chase; William L. Haugh, Jr.
16-1108Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 22, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1108
JUDY KAY MISKELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARRY L. CHASE; WILLIAM L. HAUGH, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00019-CCB)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Judy Kay Miskell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Judy Kay Miskell appeals the district court’s order
returning correspondence that Miskell attempted to file in her
closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Miskell v. Chase, No.
1:15−cv−00019-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2016). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.