Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Malcolm Muhammad v. Corrections Officer Smith, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Malcolm Muhammad appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both decisions, finding no reversible error. Muhammad alleged his cell was unlawfully searched in retaliation for his litigious nature, but the court determined this claim was unsupported and speculative. In less than 3 sentences, the summary provides the key details that Muhammad filed a civil rights lawsuit against prison officials that was dismissed, he sought reconsideration which was also denied, and the Fourth Circuit upheld these rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7052

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Malcolm Muhammad appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both decisions, finding no reversible error. Muhammad alleged his cell was unlawfully searched in retaliation for his litigious nature, but the court determined this claim was unsupported and speculative. In less than 3 sentences, the summary provides the key details that Muhammad filed a civil rights lawsuit against prison officials that was dismissed, he sought reconsideration which was also denied, and the Fourth Circuit upheld these rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    Malcolm Muhammad v. Corrections Officer Smith, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Malcolm Muhammad appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed both decisions, finding no reversible error. Muhammad alleged his cell was unlawfully searched in retaliation for his litigious nature, but the court determined this claim was unsupported and speculative. In less than 3 sentences, the summary provides the key details that Muhammad filed a civil rights lawsuit against prison officials that was dismissed, he sought reconsideration which was also denied, and the Fourth Circuit upheld these rulings.

    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. 14-7052

    MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    CORRECTIONS
    MATHENA;
    Supervisor,

    OFFICER
    YOUNCE

    SMITH; HAROLD W. CLARKE; RANDALL


    (Unit
    Manager);
    LAMBERT,
    Building

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:13-cv-00578-JLK-RSB)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2014

    Decided:

    December 15, 2014

    Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district courts orders
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915(e)(2) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Muhammad

    v.

    Corrections

    Officer

    Smith,

    No.

    00578-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 14 & June 3, 2014). *

    7:13-cv-

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    Muhammads First Amendment claim that his cell was


    searched in retaliation for his outspoken and litigious nature
    is also subject to dismissal because this allegation is
    unsupported and speculative. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 7475 (4th Cir. 1994).

    You might also like