Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marcus Thomas v. L. Ross, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Marcus D. Thomas in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record. Specifically, the court found that Thomas presented no evidence that the defendants fabricated documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. The appellate court also determined that the district court did not err in denying Thomas' motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena witnesses.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7622

    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 Marcus D. Thomas in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record. Specifically, the court found that Thomas presented no evidence that the defendants fabricated documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. The appellate court also determined that the district court did not err in denying Thomas' motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena witnesses.

    Copyright:

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

    Marcus Thomas v. L. Ross, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Marcus D. Thomas in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record. Specifically, the court found that Thomas presented no evidence that the defendants fabricated documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. The appellate court also determined that the district court did not err in denying Thomas' motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena witnesses.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7622

    MARCUS D. THOMAS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    L. ROSS, RN; E. JOHNSON, RN; D. SPIERS, DON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:13-cv-00989-TSE-MSN)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 20, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marcus D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney,


    RAWLS,
    MCNELIS
    &
    MITCHELL,
    PC,
    Richmond,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus D. Thomas 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

    conclude

    Defendants

    that

    Thomas

    fabricated

    the

    has

    presented

    documents

    no

    submitted

    We

    have

    Specifically,
    evidence
    in

    that

    support

    of

    their motion for summary judgment and that the district court
    did

    not

    err

    in

    denying

    Thomas

    counsel and to subpoena witnesses.

    motions

    for

    appointment

    of

    Accordingly, we deny Thomas

    motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons


    stated by the district court.

    Thomas v. Ross, No. 1:13-cv-

    00989-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2015).

    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

    You might also like