Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Sumrell v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to David Keith Sumrell in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument because 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

    Sumrell v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to David Keith Sumrell in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7622

    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 denial of relief to David Keith Sumrell in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument because 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

    Sumrell v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to David Keith Sumrell in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court dispensed with oral argument because 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. 01-7622

    DAVID KEITH SUMRELL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CA-01-304-2)

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2002

    Decided:

    February 8, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    David Keith Sumrell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Keith Sumrell appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

    the district court. See Sumrell v. Virginia, No. CA-01-304-2 (E.D.


    Va. July 18, 2001).

    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

    You might also like