Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Sims v. Vorhis, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Billy Sims filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three defendants in district court. The district court denied relief on Sims' complaint and denied his motion for reconsideration. Sims appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Sims v. Vorhis, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Raymond Billy Sims filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three defendants in district court. The district court denied relief on Sims' complaint and denied his motion for reconsideration. Sims appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6492

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raymond Billy Sims filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three defendants in district court. The district court denied relief on Sims' complaint and denied his motion for reconsideration. Sims appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Sims v. Vorhis, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Billy Sims filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three defendants in district court. The district court denied relief on Sims' complaint and denied his motion for reconsideration. Sims appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court 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. 00-6492

    RAYMOND BILLY SIMS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RICHARD C. VORHIS; BARBARA A. WILLIAMS; JOHN
    C. JOHNSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-00-282-AM)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 2000

    Decided:

    June 6, 2000

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raymond Billy Sims, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Billy Sims appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and
    denying his motion for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion and orders and find no
    reversible error.
    district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the


    See Sims v. Vorhis, No. CA-00-282-AM (E.D. Va.

    Feb. 29 & Mar. 22, 2000).

    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