Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Brooks v. Doe, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A three-judge panel dismissed an appeal from Stephan Brooks of a district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court below. The district court had denied Brooks' complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) related to dismissal of in forma pauperis claims.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Brooks v. Doe, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A three-judge panel dismissed an appeal from Stephan Brooks of a district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court below. The district court had denied Brooks' complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) related to dismissal of in forma pauperis claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6797

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A three-judge panel dismissed an appeal from Stephan Brooks of a district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court below. The district court had denied Brooks' complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) related to dismissal of in forma pauperis claims.

    Copyright:

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

    Brooks v. Doe, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A three-judge panel dismissed an appeal from Stephan Brooks of a district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found the appeal frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court below. The district court had denied Brooks' complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) related to dismissal of in forma pauperis claims.

    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. 02-6797

    STEPHAN D. BROOKS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN DOE,
    BUENING,

    Law

    Enforcement

    Officer;

    R.

    G.
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-98-460-3-2MU)

    Submitted:

    July 18, 2002

    Decided:

    July 25, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Stephan D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
    Richard Harcourt Fulton,
    OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Frank
    Bayard Aycock, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Stephan D. Brooks appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint under
    28 U.S.C.A. 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 2002).

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion and find that this appeal
    is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

    of the district court.

    See Brooks v. Doe, No. CA-98-460-3-2MU

    (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 30, 2002 & entered May 2, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like