Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Charles Morris, III v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Charles Robert Morris III's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Charles Morris, III v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Charles Robert Morris III's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6544

    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 affirmed the district court's dismissal of Charles Robert Morris III's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Charles Morris, III v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Charles Robert Morris III's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6544

    CHARLES ROBERT MORRIS, III,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.D.C.; WARDEN OF COFFEE WOOD;
    COFFEE WOOD MEDICAL STAFF, Medical Department,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
    District Judge. (2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM)

    Submitted:

    August 28, 2014

    Decided:

    September 3, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Robert Morris, III, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Robert

    Morris,

    III,

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint


    under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Morris v. Clarke,

    No. 2:14-cv-00022-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014).

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like