Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Miller v. Sharp, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Alphonzo J. Miller's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Sharp. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Miller v. Sharp, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Alphonzo J. Miller's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Sharp. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-07-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6613

    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 for Alphonzo J. Miller's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Sharp. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Miller v. Sharp, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief for Alphonzo J. Miller's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Sharp. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    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. 09-6613

    ALPHONZO J. MILLER,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MR. SHARP, Dentist, Dr.,
    Defendant Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00050-MSD-TEM)

    Submitted:

    July 23, 2009

    Decided:

    July 30, 2009

    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alphonzo J. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alphonzo J. Miller appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    Miller v. Sharp, No. 2:09-cv-00050-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va.

    court.

    Mar. 6, 2009).

    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