Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hamrick v. State of WV, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Thomas Hamrick filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various West Virginia state entities and officials. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6748

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Thomas Hamrick filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various West Virginia state entities and officials. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Hamrick v. State of WV, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Thomas Hamrick filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various West Virginia state entities and officials. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-6748

    THOMAS M. HAMRICK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL
    INVESTIGATION COMMISSION; WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE
    OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; WEST VIRGINIA MAGISTRATE COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY; WEST VIRGINIA
    KANAWHA COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE; KANAWHA
    COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; WEST VIRGINIA
    KANAWHA COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
    (911); STEVEN J. KNOPP; CHARLES R. GARTEN,
    JR.; JOHN W. BENNETT; WILLIAM FORBES; CAROL
    FOUTY; JACK PAULEY; PETE LOPEZ; KATHY DEMARCO;
    WARD HARSHBARGER; DAVID TUCKER; KEVIN QUINLAN;
    D. E. DRENNAN; B. C. ROBBINS; OTHERS UNKNOWN,
    as yet to be identified,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    BRUCE KAYUHA,
    Movant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-97-2)

    Submitted:

    July 13, 2000

    Decided:

    July 25, 2000

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas M. Hamrick, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Denise Helbling, STEPTOE


    & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia; John Andrew Smith, SMITH,
    CONLEY & WELLBORN, Charleston, West Virginia; Robert William
    Schulenberg, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas M. Hamrick appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion accepting
    the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Hamrick v. West Virginia, No. CA-00-97-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 16, 2000).
    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