Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dorel Pickett v. M. Rawls, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Dorel Pickett on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Pickett had appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the reasons stated by the district court for denying Pickett's complaint. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7779

    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 denial of relief to Dorel Pickett on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Pickett had appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the reasons stated by the district court for denying Pickett's complaint. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Dorel Pickett v. M. Rawls, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Dorel Pickett on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Pickett had appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the reasons stated by the district court for denying Pickett's complaint. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7779

    DOREL PICKETT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DEPUTY M. RAWLS, 71 Sussex S. D.; LIEUTENANT BANTY, Sussex
    Lieutenant; DEPUTY CHERRY, Sussex Deputy,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (2:14-cv-00278-AWA-DEM)

    Submitted:

    April 23, 2015

    Decided: April 27, 2015

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dorel Pickett, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Dorel Pickett appeals the district courts order denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2012)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    v. Rawls, No. 2:14-cv-00278-AWA-DEM
    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    Pickett

    (E.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2014).

    because

    presented

    have

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like