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)
23-6433•Leonard Harris v. NAKITA ROSS, Parole Agent
23-6433Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 29, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6433
LEONARD HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NAKITA ROSS, Parole Agent; CLEVELAND C. FRIDAY, Warden of Jessup
Correction Institution; MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; DPSCS; KERRI
SMITH, Parole Supervisor, DPSCS; DANIELLE FLYNN, Field Supervisor II,
DPSCS; MARTHA L. DANNER, Director of Parole & Probation, DPSCS; DAVID
BLUMBERG, Maryland Parole Commission; OFFICER KYLE THOMAS, Elkton
Police Department; OFFICER C. SOTO OCASIO, MD Transportation Authority;
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY JENNIFER ROAD DETENTION CENTER;
RHONDA OSBORN, Detective, Warrant Apprehension Unit; DEMETRIUS E.
PAGE, Regional Administrator DPSCS; BRUCE GERBER, Maryland Division
Parole and Probation; CORRIE MCCALL, Parole Supervisor, DPSCS; E. DYER,
Parole Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01983-TDC)
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 29, 2024
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Leonard Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, Assistant Attorney General,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Harris appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment in Harris’ civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. Harris v. Ross, No. 1:21-cv-01983-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2023).
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.