Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Newbill v. Musselman, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Christopher Newbill filed a § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman which was denied by the district court. Newbill appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no errors. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Newbill's § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The appeals court also denied Newbill's request for oral argument as 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

    You might also like

    Newbill v. Musselman, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Christopher Newbill filed a § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman which was denied by the district court. Newbill appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no errors. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Newbill's § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The appeals court also denied Newbill's request for oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6687

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Christopher Newbill filed a § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman which was denied by the district court. Newbill appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no errors. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Newbill's § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The appeals court also denied Newbill's request for oral argument as 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
    7 views2 pages

    Newbill v. Musselman, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Christopher Newbill filed a § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman which was denied by the district court. Newbill appealed the denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no errors. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Newbill's § 1983 complaint against Dr. Musselman based on the reasoning in the district court opinion. The appeals court also denied Newbill's request for oral argument as 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. 96-6687

    CHRISTOPHER T. NEWBILL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DOCTOR MUSSELMAN,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-96-384-R)
    Submitted:

    October 17, 1996

    Decided:

    October 24, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher T. Newbill, Appellant Pro Se.
    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 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Newbill v. Musselman, No. CA-96-384-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 22,
    1996). We deny Appellant's motion for 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