Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michael Craig Clark v. State of North Carolina John T. Chaffin, Chief, District Court Judge, 927 F.2d 595, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a lower court decision denying relief to Michael Craig Clark under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the State of North Carolina and a chief district court judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the record and reasoning of the lower court decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the materials available to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-02-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 927 F.2d 595 Docket: 90-2242

    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 a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a lower court decision denying relief to Michael Craig Clark under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the State of North Carolina and a chief district court judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the record and reasoning of the lower court decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the materials available to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Michael Craig Clark v. State of North Carolina John T. Chaffin, Chief, District Court Judge, 927 F.2d 595, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a lower court decision denying relief to Michael Craig Clark under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the State of North Carolina and a chief district court judge. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the record and reasoning of the lower court decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the materials available to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    927 F.

    2d 595
    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.
    Michael Craig CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; John T. Chaffin, Chief,
    District
    Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 90-2242.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Feb. 4, 1991.
    Decided Feb. 28, 1991.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (CA-90-39-2-CIV-D)
    Michael Craig Clark, appellant pro se.
    E.D.N.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Michael Craig Clark 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
    discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the

    reasoning of the district court. Clark v. North Carolina, CA-90-39-2-CIV-D


    (E.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 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