Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Scott v. Hudgins, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Joey D. Scott of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order. All of Scott's pending motions, including motions for appointment of counsel and to compel discovery, were denied. Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6051

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Joey D. Scott of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order. All of Scott's pending motions, including motions for appointment of counsel and to compel discovery, were denied. Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Scott v. Hudgins, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Joey D. Scott of the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order. All of Scott's pending motions, including motions for appointment of counsel and to compel discovery, were denied. Oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 09-6051

    JOEY D. SCOTT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    FNU HUDGINS, Sergeant; MATTHEW PENNELL; KEITH WHITENER; BOYD
    BENNETT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00137-GCM)

    Submitted:

    July 20, 2009

    Decided:

    October 22, 2009

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joey D. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joey

    D.

    Scott

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint alleging


    excessive

    force.

    We

    reversible error.

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    Scott v. Hudgins, No. 5:08-cv-00137-GCM

    by the district court.


    (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2008).

    We deny all Scotts pending motions,

    including his motions for appointment of counsel, to Dismiss


    PLRA

    Procedure,

    to

    compel

    discovery,

    to

    continue

    videoconference hearing, for seizure of property/assets, and to


    impose sanctions.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like