Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lane v. Barker, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Lloyd Steven Lane in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion adopting the magistrate's recommendation and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that decision. The facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6616

    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 denial of relief to Lloyd Steven Lane in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion adopting the magistrate's recommendation and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that decision. The facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    Lane v. Barker, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Lloyd Steven Lane in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinion adopting the magistrate's recommendation and found no reversible error. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that decision. The facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials so oral arguments were not necessary.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-6616

    LLOYD STEVEN LANE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM R. BARKER; EMILIO PAGAN; RONALD
    GODWIN; BILLY YARD BATTEN; MITCH LOWERY;
    THEODORE SWANN; MIKE WALKER; G. WAYNE SPEARS;
    JOHN WILLIAMS; LARRY MATHIS; MALCOLM L.
    DEBNAM; MELISSA SELLARS; OFFICER LAMM,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    J. R. HUNT; KATHY MERCER; LINWOOD TEDDER; KIM
    EDWARDS; LINDA MIASTO; J. COLEMAN; PATRICIA
    MABREY; MARGARET WILLIAMSON; WILLIAM BRITT;
    RAY JERNIGAN; HENRY CAMBELL; ANTHONY SINGLETARY; RANDY CRIBB; HENRY CORR STEVENS; CAROL
    WHITAKER; JOHN R. MILLS; CLIFTON DAVENPORT;
    C. R. LINCOLN; LARRY W. MOORE; LYNN PHILLIPS;
    JAMES L. MILLER; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.;
    J. A. DOBBIN; PAT CHAVIS,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-93-431-5-CT-H)
    Submitted:

    August 22, 1996

    Decided:

    September 5, 1996

    Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lloyd Steven Lane, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
    judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lane v. Barker,
    No. CA-93-431-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 1996). 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