Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Odom v. Soles, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Anthony Odom filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court denied Odom's request for appointment of counsel and ruled oral arguments were not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-08-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6669

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Anthony Odom filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court denied Odom's request for appointment of counsel and ruled oral arguments were not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Odom v. Soles, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Anthony Odom filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court denied Odom's request for appointment of counsel and ruled oral arguments were not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-6669

    ANTHONY L. ODOM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    B. SOLES, Superintendent; LIEUTENANT HAWKS;
    LIEUTENANT MATEEN; W. HENCE, Correctional
    Officer; GLENN LIVESAY, Maintenance Man; MS.
    GRAY, Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
    (CA-00-841-AM)

    Submitted:

    July 26, 2001

    Decided:

    August 2, 2001

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Anthony L. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony L. Odom appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

    the district court. Odom v. Soles, No. CA-00-841-AM (E.D. Va. filed
    Apr. 3, 2001; entered Apr. 4, 2001).

    We deny Odoms motion for

    appointment of counsel and 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