Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Haywood Williams Jr. appealed a district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal lacked merit. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate to deny Williams relief. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and did not require oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 852 F.2d 567 Docket: 88-7636

    Original Title

    Haywood Williams, Jr. v. Giles Clark Greg Bellamy Ray H. Walton William F. Fairley David P. Ford Bertha Berry H.O. Peterson, 852 F.2d 567, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Haywood Williams Jr. appealed a district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal lacked merit. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate to deny Williams relief. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and did not require oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Haywood Williams Jr. appealed a district court's denial of relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal lacked merit. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had accepted the recommendation of the magistrate to deny Williams relief. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and did not require oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    852 F.

    2d 567

    Unpublished Disposition
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Haywood WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Giles CLARK; Greg Bellamy; Ray H. Walton; William F.
    Fairley; David P. Ford; Bertha Berry; H.O.
    Peterson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 88-7636.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: June 30, 1988.
    Decided: July 22, 1988.

    Haywood Williams, Jr., appellant pro se.


    Norma Smithwick Harrell (Office of the Attorney General for North
    Carolina), William F. Fairley (Fairley, Jess & Isenberg), Addison Hewlett,
    Jr. (Hewlett & Collins), Robert Glen Peterson (Prevatte, Prevatte &
    Peterson), for appellees.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals from the district court's order denying relief
    under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this
    appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Williams v. Clark, CA-86-667-CRT (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 1988). 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.
    2

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like