Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Isaac Patterson v. William Muse, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Isaac Patterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel of three judges reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Patterson v. Muse, No. 2:12-cv-00498-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014). The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and that oral argument was not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-10-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6594

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Isaac Patterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel of three judges reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Patterson v. Muse, No. 2:12-cv-00498-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014). The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and that oral argument was not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    Isaac Patterson v. William Muse, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Isaac Patterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The panel of three judges reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Patterson v. Muse, No. 2:12-cv-00498-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014). The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues and that oral argument was not necessary.

    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. 14-6594

    ISAAC PATTERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM MUSE; KAREN D. BROWN; RITA J ANGELONE; MINOR F.
    STONE; FREDERICK M QUAYLE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:12-cv-00498-RAJ-TEM)

    Submitted:

    October 21, 2014

    Decided:

    October 23, 2014

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Isaac Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.


    James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Isaac

    Patterson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Patterson v. Muse, No. 2:12-cv-00498-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va.

    Mar. 31, 2014).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like