Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas v. Olshausen, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its June 2008 order. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1769

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its June 2008 order. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    Thomas v. Olshausen, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying relief, as stated in its June 2008 order. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-1769

    RANDY L. THOMAS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    YNEZ
    OLSHAUSEN;
    MARY
    ELLEN
    MCDONALD;
    PETER
    GORMAN;
    CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE
    OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130-GCM)

    Submitted:

    November 10, 2008

    Decided:

    December 11, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.


    Mark Weston
    MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Richard
    Fulton, Sardar Mujeeb Shah-Khan, OFFICE OF THE CITY
    Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant
    General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Johnson,
    Harcourt
    ATTORNEY,
    Attorney

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randy

    L.

    Thomas

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Thomas

    v.

    Olshausen,

    No.

    3:07-cv-00130-GCM

    (W.D.N.C.

    filed June 16, 2008 & entered June 17, 2008).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like