Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

878 F.2d 378

Docket No. 88-6724.

Abdullah (Saleem Nuriddin) v. Thompson (Charles W., Jr.)

Full caption · 10 consolidated cases

  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Benjamin LOVE, Assistant State's Attorney for Carroll County
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Ralph T. UEBERSAX, Deputy State's Attorney for Carroll County
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Charles W. THOMPSON, Jr., Assistant State's Attorney for Carroll County
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Thomas E. HICHMAN, State's Attorney for Carroll County
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.STATE of Maryland
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.The Honorable Edward O. WEANT, Jr., Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit Court for the County of Carroll
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Dr. Julius CHEPKO
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.Glenn E. MUMMERT, Warden, Carroll County Detention Center
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.H. Leroy CAMPBELL, Sheriff of Carroll County (1975-1977) Carroll County Sheriff's Department
  • Saleem Nuriddin ABDULLAHv.J. Robert JOHNSON, Attorney At Law, Assistant District Public Defender for Carroll County

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted April 28, 1989. Decided June 19, 1989.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1994

19 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, appellant pro se.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Saleem Nuriddin Abdullah appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Abdullah v. Love, C/A Nos. 88-464-HAR, 88-465-HAR, 88-466-HAR, 88-467-HAR, 88-468-HAR, 88-469-HAR, 88-470-HAR, 88-471-HAR, 88-472-HAR, 88-474-HAR (D.Md. Feb. 24, 1988). We deny appointment of counsel, deny Abdulla's request for copies of the district court's and this Court's file in this matter, and 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

/878/f2d/378 · .json · Public domain