Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Finnell v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alfred Wayne Finnell appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court found that Finnell's challenge to his federal conviction was barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey that such challenges cannot proceed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. The court also found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7119

    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 summarizes a court case in which Alfred Wayne Finnell appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court found that Finnell's challenge to his federal conviction was barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey that such challenges cannot proceed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. The court also found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    Copyright:

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

    Finnell v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alfred Wayne Finnell appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court found that Finnell's challenge to his federal conviction was barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey that such challenges cannot proceed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. The court also found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    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. 02-7119

    ALFRED WAYNE FINNELL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JUVENILE & DOMESTIC
    RELATIONS COURT, Nineteenth Judicial District,
    Fairfax County, Virginia,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
    Judge. (CA-02-664-AM)

    Submitted:

    October 10, 2002

    Decided:

    October 21, 2002

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alfred Wayne Finnell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alfred

    Wayne

    Finnell

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    summarily dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action.

    order

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
    reversible error. Insofar as Finnell is attempting to challenge his
    federal conviction, we find it barred by the rule announced in Heck
    v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We also find the action barred by
    the statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).
    Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like