Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Evans v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is a 3 sentence summary of an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The plaintiff, Chiles P. Evans, appealed the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision to deny Evans relief for the reasons stated in its ruling. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6465

    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    This document is a 3 sentence summary of an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The plaintiff, Chiles P. Evans, appealed the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision to deny Evans relief for the reasons stated in its ruling. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding 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
    7 views2 pages

    Evans v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3 sentence summary of an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The plaintiff, Chiles P. Evans, appealed the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision to deny Evans relief for the reasons stated in its ruling. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding 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. 07-6465

    CHILES P. EVANS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections; FRED SCHILLING, Department of
    Corrections Medical (Head); L. KELLY, Warden SX-1,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (2:06-cv-00404-JBF)

    Submitted: July 19, 2007

    Decided:

    July 25, 2007

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Chiles P. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Chiles

    P.

    Evans

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.


    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    No.

    2:06-cv-00404-JBF

    (E.D.

    Va.

    Mar.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    Johnson,

    order

    7,

    Evans v.

    2007).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like