Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Chavis v. Bedsole, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Edison Chavis, Sr. on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Morris Bedsole, Ann Campbell, Earl Butler, Dan Ford, and Morris Simpson. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and affirmed its decision to deny relief to Chavis.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Chavis v. Bedsole, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Edison Chavis, Sr. on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Morris Bedsole, Ann Campbell, Earl Butler, Dan Ford, and Morris Simpson. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and affirmed its decision to deny relief to Chavis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7653

    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 Edison Chavis, Sr. on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Morris Bedsole, Ann Campbell, Earl Butler, Dan Ford, and Morris Simpson. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and affirmed its decision to deny relief to Chavis.

    Copyright:

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

    Chavis v. Bedsole, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Edison Chavis, Sr. on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Morris Bedsole, Ann Campbell, Earl Butler, Dan Ford, and Morris Simpson. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and affirmed its decision to deny relief to Chavis.

    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. 96-7653

    EDISON CHAVIS, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MORRIS BEDSOLE; ANN CAMPBELL; EARL BUTLER,
    a/k/a Moose; DAN FORD; MORRIS SIMPSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, District
    Judge. (CA-95-700-5-BR)
    Submitted:

    November 6, 1997

    Decided:

    November 18, 1997

    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edison Chavis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Bobby Grey Deaver, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Larry James McGlothlin, Fayetteville, North
    Carolina; Douglas Edward Canders, CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
    OFFICE, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chavis
    v. Bedsole, No. CA-95-700-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 1996). 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