Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Oliver v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    Dan Oliver filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Oliver appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary. The district court's denial of Oliver's complaint was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6741

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dan Oliver filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Oliver appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary. The district court's denial of Oliver's complaint was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Oliver v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Dan Oliver filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Oliver appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary. The district court's denial of Oliver's complaint was affirmed.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-6741

    DAN OLIVER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    D. BRAXTON, Warden; T. FOWLKES, Ombudsman; H.
    CLARK, Operational Officer; RN TWEATY; RN RAY;
    DOCTOR WARREN; RN CASPER; KEELING, Assistant
    Warden; R. FLEMING, Regional Director; WRIGHT,
    of Records,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    LIEUTENANT FALZT; OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER
    DAVIDSON; SERGEANT MOSLEY; OFFICER PURDY;
    LIEUTENANT BARBOUR; LIEUTENANT ROSS; OFFICER
    WILSON; SERGEANT BERNARD; SERGEANT WHITE;
    OFFICER SUTTON; S. HARRISON, Director, Department of Corrections,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-01-121-AM)

    Submitted:

    August 23, 2001

    Decided:

    August 30, 2001

    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se.


    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dan Oliver appeals the district courts order denying relief
    on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28
    U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

    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.
    Oliver v. Braxton, No. CA-01-121-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2001;
    entered Apr. 2, 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