Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Davila v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Robert Davila filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no issue of material fact. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court properly determined the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-02-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7237

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Davila filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no issue of material fact. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court properly determined the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Davila v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Davila filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no issue of material fact. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court properly determined the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-7237

    ROBERT DAVILA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES BROOKS, Major at Lee Correctional Institution; THOMAS JACKSON, Mailroom worker at Lee
    Correctional
    Institution;
    ROBERT
    VAUGHN,
    Mailroom worker at Lee Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    WILLIAM DAVIS,
    Institution,

    Warden

    of

    Lee

    Correctional
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-97-1240-18BD)

    Submitted:

    November 30, 1998

    Decided:

    February 10, 1999

    Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Davila, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, RICHARDSON
    & JAMES, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Davila appeals the district courts order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees on his 42 U.S.C.A.
    1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.

    We have reviewed the record

    and the district courts opinion accepting the magistrate judges


    recommendation.

    We conclude the district court properly found

    there was no issue of material fact and the defendants-appellees


    were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    firm on the reasoning of the district court.
    CA-97-1240-18BD (D.S.C. July 17, 1998).

    Accordingly, we afDavila v. Brooks, No.

    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