Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Medley v. Daniel, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Vincent DePaul Medley filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against W.K. Daniel and the Halifax County Jail which was denied by the district court. 2) Medley appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision to deny Medley's complaint. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Medley v. Daniel, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    1) Vincent DePaul Medley filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against W.K. Daniel and the Halifax County Jail which was denied by the district court. 2) Medley appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision to deny Medley's complaint. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7748

    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) Vincent DePaul Medley filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against W.K. Daniel and the Halifax County Jail which was denied by the district court. 2) Medley appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision to deny Medley's complaint. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Medley v. Daniel, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Vincent DePaul Medley filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against W.K. Daniel and the Halifax County Jail which was denied by the district court. 2) Medley appealed the district court's denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision to deny Medley's complaint. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7748

    VINCENT DEPAUL MEDLEY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. K. DANIEL,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    HALIFAX COUNTY JAIL,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-95-285-R)
    Submitted:

    January 11, 1996

    Decided:

    January 25, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vincent DePaul Medley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Thompson, Chatham, Virginia, for Appellee.

    William Carrington

    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 and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Medley v. Daniel, No. CA-95-285-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 1995).
    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