Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dung v. Phan v. Ms. Indman Warden Tidwell Joyce Wilson Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Virginia, 70 F.3d 1262, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The appellant appealed a magistrate judge's order that denied relief on the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials. The court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the appellant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 70 F.3d 1262 Docket: 94-7325

    Original Title

    Dung v. Phan v. Ms. Indman Warden Tidwell Joyce Wilson Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 70 F.3d 1262, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellant appealed a magistrate judge's order that denied relief on the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials. The court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the appellant.

    Copyright:

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

    Dung v. Phan v. Ms. Indman Warden Tidwell Joyce Wilson Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Virginia, 70 F.3d 1262, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The appellant appealed a magistrate judge's order that denied relief on the appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials. The court issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's denial of relief to the appellant.

    Copyright:

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

    70 F.

    3d 1262

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.
    DUNG V. PHAN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    MS. INDMAN; WARDEN TIDWELL; JOYCE WILSON;
    Attorney
    General of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
    Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 94-7325.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 27, 1995.
    Decided Dec. 4, 1995.

    Dung V. Phan, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN &
    PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the
    magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
    on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Phan v. Indman, No. CA-94-43-R
    (E.D.Va. Nov. 3, 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

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28


    U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(c) (West 1993)

    You might also like