Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Biggs v. Cartwright, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    Robert Biggs, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Biggs appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the lower court's decision and documents, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6816

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Biggs, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Biggs appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the lower court's decision and documents, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    Biggs v. Cartwright, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Biggs, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Biggs appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the lower court's decision and documents, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6816

    ROBERT BIGGS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NURSE CARTWRIGHT; MR. WEEKS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    WILLIAM C. MEADOWS; SUPERINTENDENT BARNES,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District
    Judge. (CA-93-17-BR)
    Submitted:

    September 10, 1996

    Decided:

    September 24, 1996

    Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Biggs, Appellant Pro Se. James Peeler Smith, Assistant
    Attorney General, David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    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 (1994) 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. Biggs v.
    Cartwright, No. CA-93-17-BR (E.D.N.C. May 10, 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