Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington v. Norfolk City Jail Dan Housen, Classification Richard Pelity Sheriff McAbe, 61 F.3d 902, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    40 views1 page
    The document is an unpublished court case from 1995 in which: 1) Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington filed a Section 1983 civil rights complaint against Norfolk City Jail and several officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials. 3) The Fourth Circuit ruled to affirm the district court's denial of Weatherington's Section 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the lower court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-07-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 61 F.3d 902 Docket: 95-6643

    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    The document is an unpublished court case from 1995 in which: 1) Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington filed a Section 1983 civil rights complaint against Norfolk City Jail and several officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials. 3) The Fourth Circuit ruled to affirm the district court's denial of Weatherington's Section 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington v. Norfolk City Jail Dan Housen, Classification Richard Pelity Sheriff McAbe, 61 F.3d 902, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished court case from 1995 in which: 1) Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington filed a Section 1983 civil rights complaint against Norfolk City Jail and several officials which was denied by the district court. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials. 3) The Fourth Circuit ruled to affirm the district court's denial of Weatherington's Section 1983 complaint based on the reasoning provided by the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    61 F.

    3d 902

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.
    Trotsky Demetrius WEATHERINGTON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    NORFOLK CITY JAIL; Dan Housen, Classification; Richard
    Pelity; Sheriff Mcabe, Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 95-6643.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 22, 1995.
    Decided July 18, 1995.

    Trotsky Demetrius Weatherington, Appellant Pro Se.


    Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. Weatherington v. Norfolk City Jail, No. CA-95288-AM (E.D.Va. Mar. 7, 1995). 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