Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Thomas v. Olshausen, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement, and for discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also denied Thomas' motion for emergency relief.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Thomas v. Olshausen, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement, and for discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also denied Thomas' motion for emergency relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1805

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement, and for discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also denied Thomas' motion for emergency relief.

    Copyright:

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

    Thomas v. Olshausen, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randy Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement, and for discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also denied Thomas' motion for emergency 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-1805

    RANDY L. THOMAS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    YNEZ
    OLSHAUSEN;
    MARY
    ELLEN
    MCDONALD;
    PETER
    GORMAN;
    CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG; STATE
    OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00130-GCM)

    Submitted:

    February 11, 2009

    Decided:

    March 12, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.


    Daniel William Clark,
    THARRINGTON, SMITH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Richard
    Harcourt Fulton, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
    Carolina; Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randy

    L.

    Thomas

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement,


    and for discovery in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (2000).
    discretion.

    We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

    the district court.

    Thomas v. Olshausen, No. 3:07-cv-00130-GCM

    (W.D.N.C. June 16, 2008).


    relief.
    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    before

    We deny Thomas motion for emergency

    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    The district court dismissed the action, and we affirmed.


    Thomas v. Olshausen, __ F. Appx __, 2008 WL 5181833 (4th Cir.
    Dec. 11, 2008) (No. 08-1769).

    You might also like