Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Terrance Lamount James appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a correctional officer. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its July 8, 2005 order. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7136

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terrance Lamount James appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a correctional officer. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its July 8, 2005 order. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    James v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Lamount James appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a correctional officer. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its July 8, 2005 order. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7136

    TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DRENDA RAY, Correctional
    Correctional Institution,

    Officer,

    Marion
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-05-225-1-MU)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2005

    Decided:

    October 4, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Terrance Lamount James appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See James v.

    Ray, No. CA-05-225-1-MU (W.D.N.C. July 8, 2005).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like