Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tunnell v. Hedgepeth, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Doyle Tunnell and Richard Hedgepeth. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Tunnell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Hedgepeth. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaint. The appeals court denied Tunnell's motion to enlarge the record and ruled that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials provided to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6454

    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 between Doyle Tunnell and Richard Hedgepeth. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Tunnell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Hedgepeth. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaint. The appeals court denied Tunnell's motion to enlarge the record and ruled that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Tunnell v. Hedgepeth, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case between Doyle Tunnell and Richard Hedgepeth. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Tunnell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Hedgepeth. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaint. The appeals court denied Tunnell's motion to enlarge the record and ruled that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials provided 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. 03-6454

    DOYLE TUNNELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RICHARD HEDGEPETH,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-182-AM)

    Submitted:

    April 24, 2003

    Decided:

    May 5, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Doyle Tunnell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Doyle Tunnell appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for


    the reasons stated by the district court. See Tunnell v. Hedgepeth,
    No. CA-03-182-AM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 24, 2003 & entered Feb. 27,
    2003). We deny Tunnells motion to enlarge the record and 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