Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Peterson v. James, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Peterson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Peterson's complaint. The court also decided oral arguments were not necessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Peterson v. James, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Daniel Peterson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Peterson's complaint. The court also decided oral arguments were not necessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6249

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daniel Peterson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Peterson's complaint. The court also decided oral arguments were not necessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Peterson v. James, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Peterson appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Peterson's complaint. The court also decided oral arguments were not necessary, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained 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. 07-6249

    DANIEL PETERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LIEUTENANT MS. JAMES; SERGEANT MS. RICHARDSON,
    at Nash Correctional Institution; CHARLES
    HILL,
    at
    Nash
    Correctional
    Institution;
    CAPTAIN
    TUCK,
    at
    Nash
    Correctional
    Institution,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:05-ct-00501-BO)

    Submitted:

    June 25, 2007

    Decided:

    July 12, 2007

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant


    Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel

    Peterson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

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


    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    order

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Peterson v.

    James, No. 5:05-ct-00501-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 15, 2007).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like