Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Walker v. Pitts, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    Shameke Walker filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials alleging excessive use of force. The district court entered judgment for the Defendants in accordance with the jury's verdict. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error, as the parties' versions of events contradicted each other. The appellate court will not disturb the jury's credibility determination in favor of the Defendants or reweigh the evidence presented at trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7402

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shameke Walker filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials alleging excessive use of force. The district court entered judgment for the Defendants in accordance with the jury's verdict. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error, as the parties' versions of events contradicted each other. The appellate court will not disturb the jury's credibility determination in favor of the Defendants or reweigh the evidence presented at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    Walker v. Pitts, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shameke Walker filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials alleging excessive use of force. The district court entered judgment for the Defendants in accordance with the jury's verdict. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error, as the parties' versions of events contradicted each other. The appellate court will not disturb the jury's credibility determination in favor of the Defendants or reweigh the evidence presented at trial.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7402

    SHAMEKE WALKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARSHALL
    PITTS,
    Lieutenant,
    Broad
    River
    Correctional
    Institution;
    HERMAN
    WRIGHT,
    Sergeant; WILLIAM CAMLIN; LLOYD B. JACKSON,
    Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    C. J. CEPAK, Warden; JOHN MAXCY, Major; PERCY
    JONES, Captain,
    Defendants,

    JACK M. CLARKE,
    Party in Interest.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CA-01-3173-17-6)

    Submitted:

    January 30, 2004

    Decided:

    February 26, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shameke Walker, Appellant Pro Se.


    William Elvin Hopkins, Jr.,
    William James Johnson, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE,
    L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Shameke

    Walker

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    entering judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jurys


    verdict in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action alleging the
    excessive use of force.

    We have reviewed the record and other

    materials before us and find no reversible error.


    versions of events were contradictory.

    The parties

    We will not disturb the

    jurys credibility determination in favor of the Defendants, nor


    will we weigh the evidence anew.

    Accordingly, we affirm. 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

    - 3 -

    You might also like