Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • White v. Rhinehart, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying relief to Judson Warren White on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and the City of Charleston, and denying his motion for clarification. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendations to deny White's complaint and motion. The Court of Appeals also denied White's motions for appointment of counsel and to submit additional evidence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-01-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7082

    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 orders denying relief to Judson Warren White on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and the City of Charleston, and denying his motion for clarification. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendations to deny White's complaint and motion. The Court of Appeals also denied White's motions for appointment of counsel and to submit additional evidence.

    Copyright:

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

    White v. Rhinehart, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying relief to Judson Warren White on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers and the City of Charleston, and denying his motion for clarification. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendations to deny White's complaint and motion. The Court of Appeals also denied White's motions for appointment of counsel and to submit additional evidence.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-7082

    JUDSON WARREN WHITE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FRED MARSHALL, Chief of Police; BRAD RHINEHART, Officer; ERROLL RANDLE, Officer; CITY OF
    CHARLESTON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-97-213-2)

    Submitted:

    January 5, 1999

    Decided:

    January 21, 1999

    Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Judson Warren White, Appellant Pro Se. John R. Teare, Jr., BOWLES,
    RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Judson Warren White appeals the district courts orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his
    motion for clarification.

    We have reviewed the record and the

    district courts opinions accepting the magistrate judges recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court.

    See White v. Rhinehart, No.

    CA-97-213-2 (S.D.W. Va. June 9, July 28 & Aug. 1, 1997).

    We deny

    Whites motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to file


    additional exhibits as evidence.

    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