Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Watlington v. Carter, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Watlington on his complaint filed under Bivens and Section 1983. Watlington argued that Defendant Carter failed to timely file her motion for summary judgment, but the Court found the motion was timely under Rule 56(c). Similarly, Defendant Benya's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was deemed timely as it was filed within the extension period granted by the district court. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6175

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Watlington on his complaint filed under Bivens and Section 1983. Watlington argued that Defendant Carter failed to timely file her motion for summary judgment, but the Court found the motion was timely under Rule 56(c). Similarly, Defendant Benya's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was deemed timely as it was filed within the extension period granted by the district court. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    Watlington v. Carter, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Watlington on his complaint filed under Bivens and Section 1983. Watlington argued that Defendant Carter failed to timely file her motion for summary judgment, but the Court found the motion was timely under Rule 56(c). Similarly, Defendant Benya's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was deemed timely as it was filed within the extension period granted by the district court. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6175

    DANIEL WATLINGTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DEBBIE CARTER; MARSHAL GEORGE BENYA,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    SHARON L. JOHNSON; SERGEANT BAILEY,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (5:05-ct-00761-FL)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2008

    Decided:

    September 16, 2008

    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel Watlington, Appellant Pro Se. E. Holt Moore, III,


    Wilmington, North Carolina; Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Watlington appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
    Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
    (1971), and 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).

    He contends that Defendant

    Carter failed to timely file her motion for summary judgment, so


    the district court erred in considering that motion.

    However, the

    motion was timely in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).


    Similarly, Defendant Benyas motion to dismiss or for summary
    judgment was filed within the extension period granted by the
    district court, and thus is deemed timely. Accordingly, we affirm.
    Watlington v. Johnson, No. 5:05-ct-00761-FL (W.D.N.C. Jan. 8,
    2008).

    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