Saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Benjamin Love, Assistant State's Attorney for Carrollcounty, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ralph T. Uebersax, Deputy State's Attorney for Carrollcounty, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Charles W. Thompson, Jr., Assistant State's Attorney Forcarroll County, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Thomas E. Hichman, State's Attorney for Carroll County,defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. State of Maryland, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Honorable Edward O. Weant, Jr., Chief Judge, Fifthjudicial Circuit Court for the County of Carroll,defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dr. Julius Chepko, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Glenn E. Mummert, Warden, Carroll County Detention Center,defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. H. Leroy Campbell, Sheriff of Carroll County (1975-1977)carroll County Sheriff's Department, Defendant-appellee.saleem Nuriddin Abdullah, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J. Robert Johnson, Attorney at Law, Assistant Districtpublic Defender for Carroll County, Defendant-appellee, 878 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseSaleem Nuriddin Abdullah, appellant pro se.
Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Saleem Nuriddin Abdullah appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 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.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
