Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Joey Scott v. Reuben Young, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    1) Joey Duane Scott appealed a district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several defendants and certain nondispositive orders. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders from June 19, 2014 through May 28, 2015. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-11-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6908

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Joey Duane Scott appealed a district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several defendants and certain nondispositive orders. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders from June 19, 2014 through May 28, 2015. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Joey Scott v. Reuben Young, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joey Duane Scott appealed a district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several defendants and certain nondispositive orders. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders from June 19, 2014 through May 28, 2015. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6908

    JOEY DUANE SCOTT,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG; ROBERT C.
    HATTIE PIMPONG; JAMES M. JOHNSON,

    LEWIS;

    FRANK

    L.

    PERRY;

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:12-ct-03159-FL)

    Submitted:

    October 30, 2015

    Decided:

    November 12, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joey Duane Scott, Appellant Pro Se.


    Yvonne Bulluck Ricci,
    Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joey Duane Scott appeals the district courts order denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    nondispositive orders.
    reversible error.

    1983

    (2012)

    complaint

    and

    certain

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    Scott v. Young, No. 5:12-ct-03159-FL

    (E.D.N.C. June 19, 2014; Oct. 7, 2014, Jan. 22, 2015; Apr. 15,
    2015; May 28, 2015).
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like