Narrative Opinion Summary
Mark Anthony Cunningham appeals the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint by the district court. After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, citing its reasoning. The case is referenced as Cunningham v. Boris, No. CA-01-247 (D.Md. Oct. 19, 2001). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials. The appellate court's decision is to affirm the lower court's ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Necessity of Oral Argument in Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Oral argument is not required in appellate review when the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the written materials.
Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.
Standard of Review for 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 Complaintssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirms the denial of relief on a 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint when no reversible error is found in the district court's decision.
Reasoning: After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, citing its reasoning.