Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rogers v. Vancamp, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Ronald Rogers appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on Rogers' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Rogers' appeal to be frivolous, so it dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6436

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ronald Rogers appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on Rogers' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Rogers' appeal to be frivolous, so it dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Copyright:

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

    Rogers v. Vancamp, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ronald Rogers appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on Rogers' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Rogers' appeal to be frivolous, so it dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-6436

    RONALD ROGERS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES R. VANCAMP; J. KIRK OSBORN; AMOS G.
    TYNDALL; MICHAEL E. BEALE, Judge; STAPLES
    HUGHES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-03-1111-1)

    Submitted:

    July 15, 2004

    Decided:

    July 21, 2004

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronald Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald

    Rogers

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying


    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A(b) (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find that this

    appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

    reasoning of the district court. See Rogers v. Vancamp, No. CA-031111-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2004).

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like