Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Peele v. Jarvis, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Haywood Peele filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the lower court's decision. The appeals court also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6946

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Haywood Peele filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the lower court's decision. The appeals court also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Peele v. Jarvis, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Haywood Peele filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in the lower court's decision. The appeals court also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-6946

    HAYWOOD L. PEELE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MACK JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; RANDALL LEE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CA-98-108-5-F)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1999

    Decided:

    November 3, 1999

    Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Haywood L. Peele, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Haywood L. Peele seeks to appeal the district courts judgment
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district courts order
    accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeal on the reasoning
    of the district court.
    (E.D.N.C. June 25, 1999).

    See Peele v. Jarvis, No. CA-98-108-5-F


    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