Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Townsend v. Lockhart, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Burney Ray Townsend's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. The Court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. However, to the extent Townsend sought to allege non-civil rights claims under diversity jurisdiction, the Court modified the district court's order to dismiss those claims without prejudice. The Court granted Townsend's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirmed the district court's decision as modified.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-2377

    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 reviewed and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Burney Ray Townsend's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. The Court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. However, to the extent Townsend sought to allege non-civil rights claims under diversity jurisdiction, the Court modified the district court's order to dismiss those claims without prejudice. The Court granted Townsend's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirmed the district court's decision as modified.

    Copyright:

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

    Townsend v. Lockhart, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Burney Ray Townsend's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. The Court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. However, to the extent Townsend sought to allege non-civil rights claims under diversity jurisdiction, the Court modified the district court's order to dismiss those claims without prejudice. The Court granted Townsend's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirmed the district court's decision as modified.

    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. 01-2377

    BURNEY RAY TOWNSEND,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS JEFFERSON LOCKHART; D. E. RAYNOR; JOHN
    L. MORRIS; GREGORY S. GEORGIADE; ESTES EXPRESS
    LINE; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OF ROBESON
    COUNTY; DUKE UNIVERSITY, Duke University
    Medical Center; HUTCH OWENS; JOHN DAVID
    HERNANDEZ; CLYDE ARTHUR HELMS; MICHAEL TODD
    JACOB; JOHN DOE (I-X),
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-01-691-1)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2002

    Decided:

    June 3, 2002

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Burney Ray Townsend, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Burney Ray Townsend seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying

    relief

    complaint.

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.A.

    1983

    (West

    Supp.

    2001)

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and find no


    reversible error as to the dismissal of Townsends civil rights
    claims brought pursuant to 1983.

    Although we express no opinion

    as to the merit of Townsends claims, to the extent he sought to


    allege non-civil rights claims under the auspice of diversity
    jurisdiction, we modify the district courts order to reflect a
    dismissal without prejudice as to those claims.

    Accordingly, we

    grant Townsends motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and


    affirm as modified. Townsend v. Lockhart, No. CA-01-691-1 (M.D.N.C.
    Oct. 26, 2001).

    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 AS MODIFIED

    You might also like