Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Martin v. Keeling, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Ernest Martin, a prisoner, filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Martin appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Martin based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 12, 1997 opinion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7519

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ernest Martin, a prisoner, filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Martin appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Martin based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 12, 1997 opinion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Martin v. Keeling, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ernest Martin, a prisoner, filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court. Martin appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying relief to Martin based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 12, 1997 opinion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-7519

    ERNEST A. MARTIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES KEELING, Assistant Warden of Programs;
    EDDIE L. PEARSON; JAMES A. SMITH; R. ROBINSON;
    P. MELVIN; J. FRANKLIN; J. PENZA; T. JONES;
    M. SHURTS; J. GUTHRIE; J. AMISON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-215-AM, CA-97-338-AM, CA-97-400-AM)
    Submitted:

    March 31, 1998

    Decided:

    April 20, 1998

    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ernest A. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 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 (1994) 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. Martin v. Keeling, Nos. CA-97-215-AM; CA-97-338-AM; CA-97400-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1997). 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