Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wiideman v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Randal N. Wiideman, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Wiideman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found Wiideman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-11-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7245

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Randal N. Wiideman, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Wiideman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found Wiideman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Wiideman v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Randal N. Wiideman, a Virginia inmate. The district court had denied relief on Wiideman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found Wiideman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the materials before 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. 00-7245

    RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT A. WATSON, Commissioner, individually,
    officially and in conspiracy with State
    Agents; STEPHEN MANUEL ARNOLD, Pastor, individually, officially and in conspiracy with
    State Agents,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
    (CA-00-891-AM)

    Submitted:

    November 9, 2000

    Decided:

    November 15, 2000

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Randal N. Wiideman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Randal N. Wiideman, 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.

    See Wiideman v. Watson,

    No. CA-00-891-AM (E.D. Va. filed June 27; entered June 28, 2000).
    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