Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Masada v. Hammond, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    El Shaddai Masada filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state officials which was denied by the district court. Masada appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In less than 3 sentences, the Fourth Circuit: 1) reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision, 2) affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Masada on the reasoning stated in the district court's opinion, and 3) determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7192

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    El Shaddai Masada filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state officials which was denied by the district court. Masada appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In less than 3 sentences, the Fourth Circuit: 1) reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision, 2) affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Masada on the reasoning stated in the district court's opinion, and 3) determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Masada v. Hammond, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    El Shaddai Masada filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state officials which was denied by the district court. Masada appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In less than 3 sentences, the Fourth Circuit: 1) reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision, 2) affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Masada on the reasoning stated in the district court's opinion, and 3) determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court 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. 02-7192

    EL SHADDAI MASADA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JEFF HAMMOND, Clerk of Court, Lancaster
    County; ROBERT E. PETERSEN, Deputy General
    Counsel, SCDC; LEE S. ALFORD, Circuit Court
    Judge,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CA-01-2536-8)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2002

    Decided:

    December 19, 2002

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    El Shaddai Masada, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, Matthew


    Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    El Shaddai Masada appeals the district courts order accepting
    the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
    his complaint construed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).

    We have

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we

    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Masada v.

    Hammond, No. CA-01-2536-8 (D.S.C. July 22, 2002). 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