Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Peter Emmanuel Bernard filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Bernard appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-12-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 70 F.3d 1260 Docket: 95-6761

    Original Title

    Peter Emmanuel Bernard v. A. Santiago D.A. Braxton Lonnie M. Saunders Augusta Correctional Center Adjustment Committee Departmental Operating Procedure, 70 F.3d 1260, 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
    1) Peter Emmanuel Bernard filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Bernard appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Peter Emmanuel Bernard filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. 2) Bernard appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

    Copyright:

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

    70 F.

    3d 1260

    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.
    Peter Emmanuel BERNARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    A. SANTIAGO; D.A. Braxton; Lonnie M. Saunders; Augusta
    Correctional Center Adjustment Committee;
    Departmental Operating Procedure,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-6761.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Dec. 5, 1995.

    Peter Emmanuel Bernard, Appellant Pro Se.


    Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Bernard v. Santiago, No. CA-92-374-R (W.D.Va. Mar. 31, 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.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like