Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Nance Curry v. F. Paul Blannock, 867 F.2d 608, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Charles Curry appealed the district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been decided authoritatively. Curry was also denied his motion for appointed counsel and motions to consider additional documents, as the Fourth Circuit considered all pertinent documents in their review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1989-02-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 867 F.2d 608 Docket: 88-7798

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Curry appealed the district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been decided authoritatively. Curry was also denied his motion for appointed counsel and motions to consider additional documents, as the Fourth Circuit considered all pertinent documents in their review.

    Copyright:

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

    Charles Nance Curry v. F. Paul Blannock, 867 F.2d 608, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Curry appealed the district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been decided authoritatively. Curry was also denied his motion for appointed counsel and motions to consider additional documents, as the Fourth Circuit considered all pertinent documents in their review.

    Copyright:

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

    867 F.

    2d 608
    Unpublished Disposition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    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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.
    Charles Nance CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    F. Paul BLANNOCK, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 88-7798.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Nov. 30, 1988.
    Decided: Jan. 17, 1989.
    Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 22, 1989.

    Charles Nance Curry, appellant pro se.


    Robert DeHardit Hicks (Martin, Hicks & Ingles, Ltd), for appellee.
    Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and WILKINSON,
    Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Charles Nance Curry 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. Curry v. Blannock, C/A No. 88-455-N (E.D.Va.
    Oct. 18, 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues
    recently have been decided authoritatively.

    AFFIRMED.

    Curry also has three motions pending in this appeal. We find that Curry is not
    entitled to appointed counsel under Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th
    Cir.1984). Also, we have considered all pertinent documents relating to this
    appeal and deny Curry's motion to consider any other documents. Finally, we
    have considered the errors in the Docketing Statement brought to our attention
    by Curry in our review of this matter

    You might also like