Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cassell v. Jagust, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Charles M. Cassell, III appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two doctors. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Cassell's motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for reconsideration, and for access to courts. Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in written materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7602

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles M. Cassell, III appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two doctors. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Cassell's motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for reconsideration, and for access to courts. Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in written materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Cassell v. Jagust, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles M. Cassell, III appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two doctors. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied Cassell's motions for appointment of counsel, to show cause and compel officials to supply materials, for injunctive relief, for reconsideration, and for access to courts. Oral argument was dispensed with because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in written 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. 08-7602

    CHARLES M. CASSELL, III,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DOCTOR JAGUST; DOCTOR MICHALAS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:06-ct-03025-BO)

    Submitted:

    January 30, 2009

    Decided:

    February 18, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se.


    McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Elizabeth
    Raleigh,

    Pharr
    North

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles M. Cassell, III, appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Cassell

    Aug. 5, 2008).
    to

    show

    cause

    v.

    No.

    Jagust,

    5:06-ct-03025-BO

    (E.D.N.C.

    We deny the motions for appointment of counsel,


    and

    compel

    officials

    to

    supply

    materials,

    for

    injunctive relief, for reconsideration, and for access to this


    and other courts.
    as moot.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    The motion in the forma pauperis is denied

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like