Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Simpson v. Lovitt, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Simpson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several deputies which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the court materials and argument would not aid the decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Simpson v. Lovitt, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Mark Simpson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several deputies which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the court materials and argument would not aid the decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-02-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7773

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mark Simpson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several deputies which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the court materials and argument would not aid the decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    Copyright:

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

    Simpson v. Lovitt, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Simpson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several deputies which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the court materials and argument would not aid the decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

    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. 02-7773

    MARK G. SIMPSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DEPUTY LOVITT; DEPUTY
    DUNNING, Sheriff,

    GWALTNEY;

    JAMES

    H.
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-02-1465-AM)

    Submitted:

    January 30, 2003

    Decided:

    February 5, 2003

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mark G. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark G. Simpson appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for


    the reasons stated by the district court.
    No. CA-02-1465-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2002).

    See Simpson v. Lovitt,


    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