Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Givens v. Criswell, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Greg Givens on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated by that court on July 22, 2010.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1916

    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 denial of relief to Greg Givens on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated by that court on July 22, 2010.

    Copyright:

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

    Givens v. Criswell, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Greg Givens on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated by that court on July 22, 2010.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-1916

    GREG GIVENS,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM
    CRISWELL;
    REBECCA
    individually and collectively,

    RANDOLPH;

    JOHN

    DOE,

    1,

    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    MAIN STREET BANK; UNITED BANK, d/b/a United National Bank;
    UNITED
    BANK
    DUNBAR,
    d/b/a
    United
    National
    Bank;
    ROSELYN J.
    CANTINI,
    United
    Bank;
    OHIO
    COUNTY,
    WEST
    VIRGINIA, Ohio County Prosecutor Office; WHEELING POLICE
    DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00025-FPS-JSK)

    Submitted:

    April 21, 2011

    Decided:

    April 26, 2011

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Murray Hall, JENKINS


    FENSTERMAKER, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; Keith C. Gamble,
    PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West
    Virginia; James Thomas McClure, GOMPERS, MCCARTHY & MCCLURE,
    Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Greg Givens appeals the district courts order denying
    relief

    on

    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2006)

    complaint.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we

    affirm

    Givens v.
    July 22,
    facts

    the

    Criswell,
    2010).

    and

    materials

    for

    legal
    before

    We

    reasons
    No.

    by

    the

    dispense

    court

    with

    oral

    (N.D.

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    court.
    W.

    Va.

    because

    the

    presented

    would

    have

    Accordingly,

    district

    5:08-cv-00025-FPS-JSK

    contentions
    the

    stated

    We

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like