Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Welmont Haden Sartin, Jr. v. Giles County Sheriff's Department, John E. Hopkins, III, 915 F.2d 1565, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished court case from 1990 in which Welmont Haden Sartin Jr. appealed the denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Giles County Sheriff's Department and John E. Hopkins III. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal without merit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion accepting the magistrate's recommendation, and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 8, 1990 ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-10-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 915 F.2d 1565 Docket: 90-7065

    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    This document is an unpublished court case from 1990 in which Welmont Haden Sartin Jr. appealed the denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Giles County Sheriff's Department and John E. Hopkins III. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal without merit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion accepting the magistrate's recommendation, and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 8, 1990 ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    Welmont Haden Sartin, Jr. v. Giles County Sheriff's Department, John E. Hopkins, III, 915 F.2d 1565, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished court case from 1990 in which Welmont Haden Sartin Jr. appealed the denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Giles County Sheriff's Department and John E. Hopkins III. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal without merit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion accepting the magistrate's recommendation, and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 8, 1990 ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    915 F.

    2d 1565
    Unpublished Disposition

    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.
    Welmont Haden SARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    GILES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, John E.
    Hopkins, III,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 90-7065.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 27, 1990.
    Decided Sept. 28, 1990.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1990.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-88-488R)
    Welmont Haden Sartin, Jr., appellant pro se.
    John L. Walker, Jr., Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, Va., for
    appellees.
    W.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Welmont Haden Sartin, Jr. appeals from the district court's order denying relief
    under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this
    appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Sartin v. Giles Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, CA-88-488-R (W.D.Va. June 8,
    1990). 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