Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views1 page
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Arminta Mohundro Russell on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court also granted Russell's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the lower court's decision based on the reasoning in Russell v. North Carolina, No. CA-94-100 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1995). The Court determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-05-30 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 56 F.3d 62 Docket: 95-6264

    Original Title

    Arminta Mohundro Russell v. State of North Carolina Lacy H. Thornburgh, Attorney General of North Carolina Robert E. Thomas, District Attorney of North Carolina, 56 F.3d 62, 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
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Arminta Mohundro Russell on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court also granted Russell's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the lower court's decision based on the reasoning in Russell v. North Carolina, No. CA-94-100 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1995). The Court determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views1 page

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Arminta Mohundro Russell on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court also granted Russell's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the lower court's decision based on the reasoning in Russell v. North Carolina, No. CA-94-100 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1995). The Court determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    56 F.

    3d 62
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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.

    Arminta Mohundro RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    STATE of North Carolina; Lacy H. Thornburgh, Attorney
    General of North Carolina; Robert E. Thomas,
    District Attorney of North Carolina,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-6264.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 20, 1995.
    Decided May 30, 1995.

    Arminta Mohundro Russell, appellant pro se. Jacob Leonard Safron,


    Special Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Russell v.
    North Carolina, No. CA-94-100 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1995). 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

    You might also like