Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Perkins v. Dewberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Herschel Julius Perkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and sheriff's office. While accepting Perkins' version of disputed events, the appellate court found his injuries were de minimis. The court also determined Perkins' mental anguish claim was meritless, as de minimis physical injuries cannot support a claim for mental or emotional injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-07-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6303

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Herschel Julius Perkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and sheriff's office. While accepting Perkins' version of disputed events, the appellate court found his injuries were de minimis. The court also determined Perkins' mental anguish claim was meritless, as de minimis physical injuries cannot support a claim for mental or emotional injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Perkins v. Dewberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Herschel Julius Perkins in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and sheriff's office. While accepting Perkins' version of disputed events, the appellate court found his injuries were de minimis. The court also determined Perkins' mental anguish claim was meritless, as de minimis physical injuries cannot support a claim for mental or emotional injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    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. 05-6303

    HERSCHEL JULIUS PERKINS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CARLTON DEWBERRY, Sergeant; MICHAEL NEEBE,
    Deputy; TIMOTHY HONIG, Deputy; ALEXANDRIA
    SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JAMES H. DUNNING, Sheriff's
    Office of Alexandria,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-1335-1)

    Submitted:

    July 6, 2005

    Decided:

    July 28, 2005

    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Herschel Julius Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jack L. Gould, Fairfax,


    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Herschel Julius Perkins appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and find no reversible error because, even
    accepting

    Perkins version of the disputed events, his injuries

    were de minimis. While the district court did not address Perkins
    mental anguish claim, this claim is meritless because de minimis
    physical injuries cannot support a claim for mental or emotional
    injury.

    See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like