Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Plummer v. Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Thomas Plummer, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Plummer's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier denial of Plummer's complaint. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the materials available to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6582

    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 in which Thomas Plummer, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Plummer's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier denial of Plummer's complaint. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the materials available to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Plummer v. Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Thomas Plummer, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found Plummer's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier denial of Plummer's complaint. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the materials available to the court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-6582

    THOMAS EDWARD PLUMMER,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center; W. WATERS, Correctional Officer; F.
    COLEMAN, Lieutenant,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Richard L. Williams, District
    Judge. (CA-99-673-3)

    Submitted:

    August 30, 2000

    Decided:

    September 7, 2000

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Thomas Edward Plummer, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Edward Plummer, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
    courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp.
    2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    that this appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

    on the reasoning of the district court.


    CA-99-673-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2000).

    See Plummer v. Hinkle, No.


    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like