Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    James v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Lamount James filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. James appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to James. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the 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

    James v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    Terrance Lamount James filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. James appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to James. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7082

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Terrance Lamount James filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. James appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to James. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the 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
    14 views2 pages

    James v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terrance Lamount James filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. James appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to James. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, as the 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. 05-7082

    TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RANDY WILLIAMS, Sergeant, in segregation
    employed at Marion; C. STURGILL, Assistant
    Unit Manager of segregation employed at
    Marion; LAWRENCE WILLIS; THEODORE BOSWORTH;
    WILLIAM STEVENS; KEITH TURNER; MICHAEL MARTIN;
    ROBERT FRADY,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-69)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2005

    Decided:

    October 4, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci,


    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Terrance Lamount James appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See James v.

    Williams, No. CA-04-69 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2005).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like