Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Robert Scott v. Pat Chavis Franklin Freeman R.C. Lewis Ruby S. Brandon M. Strickland, 91 F.3d 133, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views1 page
    James Robert Scott filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint that was denied by the district court. Scott appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 91 F.3d 133 Docket: 96-6213

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Robert Scott filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint that was denied by the district court. Scott appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views1 page

    James Robert Scott v. Pat Chavis Franklin Freeman R.C. Lewis Ruby S. Brandon M. Strickland, 91 F.3d 133, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Robert Scott filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint that was denied by the district court. Scott appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    91 F.

    3d 133

    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    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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.
    James Robert SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Pat CHAVIS; Franklin Freeman; R.C. Lewis; Ruby S.
    Brandon; M. Strickland, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 96-6213.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 20, 1996.
    Decided July 9, 1996.

    James Robert Scott, Appellant Pro Se.


    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
    of the district court. Scott v. Chavis, No. CA-95-920-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26,
    1996). 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