Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Henry Parrish v. Sheriff Harper Calvin Thigpen, Dr. David Haines, DR., and Medical Staff, 52 F.3d 321, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an appeals court decision affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the plaintiff (Henry Parrish) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit against prison officials. In less than 3 sentences, the appeals court summarizes that it reviewed the trial transcript and lower court order and found no merit to Parrish's appeal. It also found that the magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in denying Parrish's request for appointed counsel and a continuance. The appeals court therefore affirms the lower court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 52 F.3d 321 Docket: 94-7154

    Original Title

    Henry Parrish v. Sheriff Harper Calvin Thigpen, Dr. David Haines, Dr., and Medical Staff, 52 F.3d 321, 4th Cir. (1995)

    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 appeals court decision affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the plaintiff (Henry Parrish) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit against prison officials. In less than 3 sentences, the appeals court summarizes that it reviewed the trial transcript and lower court order and found no merit to Parrish's appeal. It also found that the magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in denying Parrish's request for appointed counsel and a continuance. The appeals court therefore affirms the lower court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Henry Parrish v. Sheriff Harper Calvin Thigpen, Dr. David Haines, DR., and Medical Staff, 52 F.3d 321, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an appeals court decision affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the plaintiff (Henry Parrish) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit against prison officials. In less than 3 sentences, the appeals court summarizes that it reviewed the trial transcript and lower court order and found no merit to Parrish's appeal. It also found that the magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in denying Parrish's request for appointed counsel and a continuance. The appeals court therefore affirms the lower court's decision.

    Copyright:

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

    52 F.

    3d 321
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.

    Henry PARRISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Sheriff HARPER; Calvin Thigpen, Dr.; David Haines, Dr.,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    MEDICAL STAFF, Defendant.
    No. 94-7154.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: March 14, 1995.
    Decided: April 19, 1995.

    Henry Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Fred R. Kozak, Archer LaFayette Yeatts,
    III, Maloney, Yeatts & Barr, P.C., Richmond, VA; Malcolm Pollard
    McConnell, III, Glen Allen, VA, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. The case was tried before a magistrate judge.1 Our
    review of the trial transcript and the magistrate judge's order discloses that this
    appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. Parrish v. Harper, No. CA-93703-E (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 1994).2 We 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

    The parties consented to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.A.


    Sec. 636(c) (West 1993)

    We also find that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying
    Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and a continuance

    You might also like