Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Futrell v. Wray, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Futrell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court found no reversible error after reviewing Futrell's complaint and the record. The Court of Appeals denied Futrell's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Futrell v. Wray, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Futrell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court found no reversible error after reviewing Futrell's complaint and the record. The Court of Appeals denied Futrell's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6678

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Futrell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court found no reversible error after reviewing Futrell's complaint and the record. The Court of Appeals denied Futrell's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Futrell v. Wray, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Futrell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court found no reversible error after reviewing Futrell's complaint and the record. The Court of Appeals denied Futrell's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented for decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    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. 96-6678

    CLYDE K. FUTRELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN ASHTON WRAY, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-96-346)
    Submitted:

    June 20, 1996

    Decided:

    July 3, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clyde K. Futrell, 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 dismissing
    as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) 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. Futrell v. Wray, No. CA-96-346 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12,
    1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and
    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

    You might also like