Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chris Schowerth v. John Ingram, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Chris Schowerth in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Schowerth for the reasons stated in its January 27, 2012 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented such that argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6221

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Chris Schowerth in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Schowerth for the reasons stated in its January 27, 2012 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented such that argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Chris Schowerth v. John Ingram, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Chris Schowerth in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Schowerth for the reasons stated in its January 27, 2012 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented such that argument would not aid in the decision.

    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. 12-6221

    CHRIS SCHOWERTH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN
    INGRAM,
    Sheriff;
    PHIL
    PARRY,
    Captain;
    JANE
    EVENS,
    Lieutenant; JAMES STEWERD, Sargent; SHANE GUNNELL, Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:10-ct-03054-BO)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2012

    Decided:

    April 26, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Chris Schowerth, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE


    CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Chris

    Schowerth

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    Schowerth v. Ingram, No. 5:10-ct-03054-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan.

    court.

    27, 2012).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like