Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X, also known as Michael Wayne Montgomery, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 86 F.3d 1154 Docket: 95-7922

    Original Title

    Shaka MacUmba Zulu X, A/K/A Michael Wayne Montgomery v. Richard Bundrick, Inmate Relations Coordinator at the Maximum Security Unit South Carolina Department of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1154, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X, also known as Michael Wayne Montgomery, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shaka Macumba Zulu X, also known as Michael Wayne Montgomery, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    86 F.

    3d 1154

    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.
    Shaka Macumba ZULU X, a/k/a Michael Wayne Montgomery,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Richard BUNDRICK, Inmate Relations Coordinator at the
    Maximum Security Unit; South Carolina Department
    of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-7922.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: March 19, 1996.
    Decided: May 30, 1996.

    Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se.


    Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    X v. Bundrick, No. CA-95-741-6-3AK (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 1995). 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