Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Law v. Lilly, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Barry Law filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several city and jail officials which was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the determination that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-12-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6993

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Barry Law filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several city and jail officials which was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the determination that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Law v. Lilly, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Barry Law filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several city and jail officials which was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the determination that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-6993

    BARRY LAW,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LINDA LILLY, City Insurance (Division of
    Risk); DAVID TORBORG, Insurance Coordination,
    City of Danville; MAJOR COLEMAN, Danville
    Jail; SERGEANT CHILDRESS, Danville Jail,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-97-449-R)
    Submitted:

    December 11, 1997

    Decided:

    December 30, 1997

    Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Barry Law, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion, dismissing the action because it
    failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28
    U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997), and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Law v. Lilly, No. CA-97-449-R (W.D. Va. July 15, 1997). 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