Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Falls v. Cummings, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Horace Falls on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officer Cummings, the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Montgomery Regional Hospital. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning that Falls was not entitled to relief. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Falls v. Cummings, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Horace Falls on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officer Cummings, the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Montgomery Regional Hospital. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning that Falls was not entitled to relief. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7145

    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 Horace Falls on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officer Cummings, the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Montgomery Regional Hospital. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning that Falls was not entitled to relief. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Falls v. Cummings, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Horace Falls on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officer Cummings, the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Montgomery Regional Hospital. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's reasoning that Falls was not entitled to relief. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    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. 99-7145

    HORACE L. FALLS, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    C. D. CUMMINGS, individually, and in his official capacity as an officer of the Blacksburg Police Department; TOWN OF BLACKSBURG,
    VIRGINIA;
    MONTGOMERY
    REGIONAL
    HOSPITAL,
    INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    RANDY ACRES, individually, and as an agent of
    Montgomery Regional Hospital, Incorporated,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-97-490-7-R)

    Submitted:

    January 18, 2000

    Decided:

    March 14, 2000

    Before MOTZ and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Louis Dene, Joseph F. Dene, DENE & DENE, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellant. David B. Hart, Peter D. Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C.,
    Roanoke, Virginia; Kathleen A. Dooley, Blacksburg Town Attorney,
    Blacksburg, Virginia; Mary M. H. Priddy, GOODMAN, WEST & FILETTI,
    P.L.L.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Horace L. Falls, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
    find no reversible error.
    of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    See Falls v. Cummings, No. CA-97-490-7-R

    (W.D. Va. Aug. 11, 1999).

    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