Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Felix v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Felix on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Felix's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Felix v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Felix on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Felix's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6020

    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 Daniel Felix on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Felix's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Felix v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Daniel Felix on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Felix's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately 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. 97-6020

    DANIEL E. FELIX,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RON ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Virginia; D. LAWSON, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; D. WILLIAMS,
    Corrections Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
    (CA-94-1638-AM)
    Submitted:

    June 12, 1997

    Decided:

    June 17, 1997

    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals 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. Felix
    v. Angelone, No. CA-94-1638-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 1996). We deny
    Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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