Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stokes v. Moorman, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles M. Stokes against Andrew Moorman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Stokes relief, accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7411

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles M. Stokes against Andrew Moorman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Stokes relief, accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining 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
    6 views2 pages

    Stokes v. Moorman, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Charles M. Stokes against Andrew Moorman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Stokes relief, accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-7411

    CHARLES MICHAEL STOKES,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ANDREW MOORMAN,
    capacities,

    sued

    in

    his

    individual

    and

    official

    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (9:10-cv-01711-CMC)

    Submitted:

    December 21, 2010

    Decided:

    January 4, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Michael Stokes, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles M. Stokes appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Stokes

    v. Moorman, No. 9:10-cv-01711-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2010).


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like