Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ralph Seagle v. Thomas J. Merkel Sylvia Thibaut North Carolina Department of Corrections, 33 F.3d 52, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to the appellant, Ralph Seagle, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court adopted the reasoning of the district court in its decision to deny Seagle's appeal without merit. The appeals court also denied Seagle's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, as such a certificate is unnecessary for § 1983 cases.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-08-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 33 F.3d 52 Docket: 94-6619

    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 summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to the appellant, Ralph Seagle, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court adopted the reasoning of the district court in its decision to deny Seagle's appeal without merit. The appeals court also denied Seagle's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, as such a certificate is unnecessary for § 1983 cases.

    Copyright:

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

    Ralph Seagle v. Thomas J. Merkel Sylvia Thibaut North Carolina Department of Corrections, 33 F.3d 52, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to the appellant, Ralph Seagle, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The appeals court adopted the reasoning of the district court in its decision to deny Seagle's appeal without merit. The appeals court also denied Seagle's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, as such a certificate is unnecessary for § 1983 cases.

    Copyright:

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

    33 F.

    3d 52

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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.
    Ralph SEAGLE, Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    Thomas J. MERKEL; Sylvia Thibaut; North Carolina
    Department of Corrections, Defendants Appellees.
    No. 94-6619.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted July 19, 1994.
    Decided Aug. 16, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-93154-CRT-BO)
    Ralph Seagle, appellant pro se.
    LaVee Hamer, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh,
    NC, for appellees.
    E.D.N.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on

    the reasoning of the district court.* Seagle v. Merkel, CA-93-154-CRT-BO


    (E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 1994). 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

    Because a certificate of probable cause to appeal is unnecessary in a Sec. 1983


    action, we deny Appellant's motion for same

    You might also like