Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Demar Worrell v. Sergeant Sparks, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    32 views3 pages
    Demar Worrell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Sergeant Sparks and Sergeant Winn alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied Worrell's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the record. The Fourth Circuit also denied Worrell's motion for oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7059

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Demar Worrell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Sergeant Sparks and Sergeant Winn alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied Worrell's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the record. The Fourth Circuit also denied Worrell's motion for oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    32 views3 pages

    Demar Worrell v. Sergeant Sparks, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demar Worrell filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Sergeant Sparks and Sergeant Winn alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied Worrell's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the record. The Fourth Circuit also denied Worrell's motion for oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7059

    DEMAR WORRELL,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    and
    ANTHONY VELASQUEZ,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    SERGEANT SPARKS; SERGEANT WINN,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    WAYNE COUNTY JAIL,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03092-D)

    Submitted:

    November 23, 2015

    Decided:

    February 25, 2016

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demar Worrell, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,


    SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART PA, New Bern, North
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Demar Worrell appeals the district courts orders granting
    summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012)
    complaint and denying reconsideration.
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    Worrell v. Sergeant

    Sparks, No. 5:14-ct-03092-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2015 & June 11,
    2015).

    We

    dispense

    with

    contentions

    deny

    are

    Worrells

    oral

    motion

    argument

    adequately

    for

    because

    presented

    in

    medical
    the
    the

    facts

    records

    and

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like