Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates v. Michael Meginty, Commonwealth Attorney Patrick Kelly, Commonwealth Attorney, 47 F.3d 1165, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views1 page
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against two Commonwealth Attorneys. The district court denied relief to Scates. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Scates' appeal. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision to affirm.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-02-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 47 F.3d 1165 Docket: 94-6973

    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 a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against two Commonwealth Attorneys. The district court denied relief to Scates. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Scates' appeal. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision to affirm.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views1 page

    Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates v. Michael Meginty, Commonwealth Attorney Patrick Kelly, Commonwealth Attorney, 47 F.3d 1165, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against two Commonwealth Attorneys. The district court denied relief to Scates. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Scates' appeal. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision to affirm.

    Copyright:

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

    47 F.

    3d 1165

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Ethel Mae Lassiter SCATES, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    Michael MEGINTY, Commonwealth Attorney; Patrick Kelly,
    Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 94-6973.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
    Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

    Ethel Mae Lassiter Scates, Appellant Pro Se.


    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court. Scates v. Meginty, No. CA-94-889-AM
    (E.D. Va. July 6, 1994; Aug. 25, 1994). We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate
    rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like