Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Campitelli v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Diane Campitelli filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against defendants Hillary Davis and John Conwell, which was denied by the district court. 2) Campitelli sought to appeal the district court's denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The appeals court denied Campitelli's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning in the case.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Campitelli v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) Diane Campitelli filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against defendants Hillary Davis and John Conwell, which was denied by the district court. 2) Campitelli sought to appeal the district court's denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The appeals court denied Campitelli's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-1054

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Diane Campitelli filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against defendants Hillary Davis and John Conwell, which was denied by the district court. 2) Campitelli sought to appeal the district court's denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The appeals court denied Campitelli's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning in the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Campitelli v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Diane Campitelli filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against defendants Hillary Davis and John Conwell, which was denied by the district court. 2) Campitelli sought to appeal the district court's denial. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The appeals court denied Campitelli's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning in the case.

    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. 02-1054

    DIANA M. CAMPITELLI,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    HILLARY GALLOWAY DAVIS; JOHN F. CONWELL,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-013739-L)

    Submitted:

    May 16, 2002

    Decided:

    May 22, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Diane M. Campitelli, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Diane M. Campitelli seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court.

    See Campitelli v. Davis, No. CA-01-3739-L (D. Md.

    Dec. 14, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like