Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Ross v. Pendell, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kevin Ross filed a § 1983 complaint against a jail classification supervisor which was denied by the district court. Ross appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The district court's denial of Ross' complaint was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Ross v. Pendell, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Kevin Ross filed a § 1983 complaint against a jail classification supervisor which was denied by the district court. Ross appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The district court's denial of Ross' complaint was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6727

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kevin Ross filed a § 1983 complaint against a jail classification supervisor which was denied by the district court. Ross appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The district court's denial of Ross' complaint was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Ross v. Pendell, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kevin Ross filed a § 1983 complaint against a jail classification supervisor which was denied by the district court. Ross appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The district court's denial of Ross' 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. 02-6727

    KEVIN LEROY ROSS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CARL PENDELL, Classification
    Henrico County Jail,

    Supervisor

    at
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-00-182)

    Submitted:

    August 29, 2002

    Decided:

    September 5, 2002

    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Kevin Leroy Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Mary
    Elizabeth Davis, SPOTTS, FAIN, CHAPPELL & ANDERSON, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Leroy Ross appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    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. See Ross v. Pendell, No. CA-00-182 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2002).
    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