Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Cousins v. NC Department Corr, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Cousins, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several officers alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Cousins appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record or opinion. The motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Cousins v. NC Department Corr, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    David Cousins, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several officers alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Cousins appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record or opinion. The motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7684

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Cousins, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several officers alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Cousins appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record or opinion. The motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Cousins v. NC Department Corr, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Cousins, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections and several officers alleging civil rights violations. The district court denied relief and adopted the magistrate's recommendation. Cousins appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error in the record or opinion. The motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

    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. 95-7684

    DAVID S. COUSINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
    LIEUTENANT MURRAY; SERGEANT TUCK; SERGEANT
    BASKET; OFFICER WILDER; OFFICER DUKE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-93-761-5-H)
    Submitted:

    March 5, 1996

    Decided:

    March 29, 1996

    Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, 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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
    judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cousins v. North
    Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-93-761-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16,
    1995). 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. The motion
    for appointment of counsel is denied.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like