Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hitt v. Mapp, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Daniel Truman Hitt v. Sheriff Mapp et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Hitt's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7290

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Daniel Truman Hitt v. Sheriff Mapp et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Hitt's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant 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
    9 views2 pages

    Hitt v. Mapp, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Daniel Truman Hitt v. Sheriff Mapp et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on Hitt's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 95-7290

    DANIEL TRUMAN HITT,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SHERIFF MAPP,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; DR. BARNES,
    Chief Physician, Powhatan Correctional Center;
    NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Sheriff; DONALD R.
    GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; B. DONATI, Powhatan Correctional Center,
    Nursing Staff; J. BROWN, Powhatan Correctional
    Center Nursing Staff; A. JOHNSON, Powhatan
    Correctional Center Nursing Staff,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-94-806)
    Submitted:

    January 18, 1996

    Decided:

    February 1, 1996

    Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Daniel Truman Hitt, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Hitt v. Mapp, No. CA-94-806 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1995). 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like