Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    McElroy v. Stanley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Lewis McElroy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied McElroy's motion for appointment of appellate counsel and affirmed the district court's decision, assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act could apply retroactively but finding it would not provide a basis for relief.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    McElroy v. Stanley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Lewis McElroy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied McElroy's motion for appointment of appellate counsel and affirmed the district court's decision, assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act could apply retroactively but finding it would not provide a basis for relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7409

    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 Arthur Lewis McElroy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied McElroy's motion for appointment of appellate counsel and affirmed the district court's decision, assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act could apply retroactively but finding it would not provide a basis for relief.

    Copyright:

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

    McElroy v. Stanley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Arthur Lewis McElroy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied McElroy's motion for appointment of appellate counsel and affirmed the district court's decision, assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act could apply retroactively but finding it would not provide a basis for relief.

    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. 01-7409

    ARTHUR LEWIS MCELROY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SERGEANT STANLEY; OFFICER MCLAMB; MARTIN
    MCDADE; ROBERT LEWIS; CHAPLIN BALCOMB; CHAPLIN
    HAYNES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HERBERLIEN; JOHN
    DOE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-98-877-5-CT-BR)

    Submitted:

    December 7, 2001

    Decided:

    December 20, 2001

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Arthur Lewis McElroy, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Lewis McElroy appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny Appellants motion

    for appointment of appellate counsel and affirm substantially on


    the reasoning of the district court.*

    See McElroy v. Stanley, No.

    CA-98-877-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. July 24, 2001).

    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

    Assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and


    Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114
    Stat. 803 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000cc) may be applied retroactively to Appellants case, we find the Act affords him no basis
    for relief.
    2

    You might also like