Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Arthur Treadwell v. Dr. Harris Edward W. Murray, Director, 39 F.3d 1178, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views1 page
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Arthur Treadwell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Harris and Edward W. Murray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the lower court in Treadwell v. Harris, No. CA-93-19 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 1994). The Court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 39 F.3d 1178 Docket: 94-6123

    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 case where Arthur Treadwell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Harris and Edward W. Murray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the lower court in Treadwell v. Harris, No. CA-93-19 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 1994). The Court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Arthur Treadwell v. Dr. Harris Edward W. Murray, Director, 39 F.3d 1178, 4th Cir. (1994)

    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 case where Arthur Treadwell appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Harris and Edward W. Murray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the lower court in Treadwell v. Harris, No. CA-93-19 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 1994). The Court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    39 F.

    3d 1178

    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.
    Arthur TREADWELL, Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    Dr. HARRIS; Edward W. Murray, Director, Defendants
    Appellees.
    No. 94-6123.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Oct. 25, 1994
    Decided Nov. 14, 1994.

    Arthur Treadwell, Appellant Pro Se. William Scott Johnson, CREWS &
    HANCOCK, Richmond, Virginia; Karen Lynn Lebo, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Treadwell v. Harris, No. CA-93-19
    (E. D. Va. Jan. 14, 1994). 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