Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an appellate court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Drew Howard Brinson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning for denying relief. The appellate court declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 89 F.3d 827 Docket: 96-6516

    Original Title

    Drew Howard Brinson v. Michael M. Moore Laurie F. Bessinger Doctor Boulware John Doe Doctors Vaughn Jackson, Captain Correctional Officer Cannon, 89 F.3d 827, 4th Cir. (1996)

    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 appellate court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Drew Howard Brinson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning for denying relief. The appellate court declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an appellate court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Drew Howard Brinson on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning for denying relief. The appellate court declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    89 F.

    3d 827

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Drew Howard BRINSON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    Michael M. MOORE; Laurie F. Bessinger; Doctor Boulware;
    John Doe Doctors; Vaughn Jackson, Captain;
    Correctional Officer Cannon,
    Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 96-6516.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 20, 1996.
    Decided July 2, 1996.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
    Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (CA-95-2076-6-6AK)
    Drew Howard Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. R. Lewis Johnson, Richard
    Carson Thomas, BARNES, ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.
    D.S.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Brinson v. Moore, No. CA-95-2076-6-6AK (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 1996). 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