Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    James v. Thickens, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Elwaldo James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police investigators and officials. The district court denied James relief and denied his motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of § 1983 relief or abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Court also noted that while the district court did not address James' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action requiring exhaustion of state remedies.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    James v. Thickens, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Elwaldo James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police investigators and officials. The district court denied James relief and denied his motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of § 1983 relief or abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Court also noted that while the district court did not address James' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action requiring exhaustion of state remedies.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-01-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7227

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Elwaldo James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police investigators and officials. The district court denied James relief and denied his motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of § 1983 relief or abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Court also noted that while the district court did not address James' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action requiring exhaustion of state remedies.

    Copyright:

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

    James v. Thickens, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Elwaldo James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police investigators and officials. The district court denied James relief and denied his motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of § 1983 relief or abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Court also noted that while the district court did not address James' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action requiring exhaustion of state remedies.

    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. 96-7227

    ELWALDO R. JAMES, a/k/a Donald Mitchell, a/k/a


    Calvin B. Smith,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    J. THICKENS, Investigator, Rock Hill Police
    Department; C. RUSSELL, Police Officer, Rock
    Hill Police Department; C. LONG, Chief, Rock
    Hill City Police Department Jail; individually
    and in their official capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-94-1114-2-6AJ)
    Submitted:

    December 19, 1996

    Decided:

    January 6, 1997

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elwaldo R. James, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, MCKINNEY,
    GIVENS & MILLAR, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief
    on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion
    filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and
    the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's
    recommendation and find no reversible error in the denial of 1983
    relief. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying
    Appellant's Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. James v. Thickens, No. CA-94-11142-6AJ (D.S.C. July 2, 1996; July 25, 1996). We also note that
    although the district court did not address Appellant's request for
    declaratory and injunctive relief, this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action which requires Appellant to exhaust state court remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
    489 (1973); Hamlin v. Warren, 664 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1981), cert.
    denied, 455 U.S. 911 (1982). 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