Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sentellus McDonald v. Sgt. Nicholson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sentellus McDonald's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Sgt. Nicholson. McDonald appealed the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6007

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sentellus McDonald's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Sgt. Nicholson. McDonald appealed the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

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

    Sentellus McDonald v. Sgt. Nicholson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sentellus McDonald's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Sgt. Nicholson. McDonald appealed the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6007

    SENTELLUS MCDONALD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SGT. NICHOLSON,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03103-H)

    Submitted:

    February 12, 2015

    Decided:

    February 19, 2015

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sentellus McDonald appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1) (2012).
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the


    Accordingly, we affirm.

    McDonald v. Nicholson, No. 5:14-ct-03103-H (E.D.N.C. June 10,


    2014).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like