Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Sizemore v. Irons, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ray Derwood Sizemore filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various government officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling without requiring oral arguments as the relevant facts and laws were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Sizemore v. Irons, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Ray Derwood Sizemore filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various government officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling without requiring oral arguments as the relevant facts and laws were adequately briefed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7072

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ray Derwood Sizemore filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various government officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling without requiring oral arguments as the relevant facts and laws were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

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

    Sizemore v. Irons, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ray Derwood Sizemore filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against various government officials which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling without requiring oral arguments as the relevant facts and laws were adequately briefed.

    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. 98-7072

    RAY DERWOOD SIZEMORE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT IRONS, Judge; DEBRA DALTON, Prosecutor
    of Monroe County; MIKE GRAVELY, Magistrate of
    Monroe County; MASON ADKINS, Magistrate of
    Monroe County; KENNEY HEDRICK, West Virginia
    State Police Union Detachment; MIKE FROBLE;
    MICKEY SYLVESTER, Conservation Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District
    Judge. (CA-97-399-1)

    Submitted:

    October 8, 1998

    Decided:

    Occtober 27, 1998

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Ray Derwood Sizemore, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ray Derwood Sizemore appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sizemore v. Irons, No. CA-97-399-1 (S.D.W. Va. July 8,
    1998). 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