Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Pittman v. Hardee, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Derneck Pittman of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found Pittman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court that denied relief on the original § 1983 complaint. The unpublished opinion from the appeals court is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Pittman v. Hardee, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Derneck Pittman of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found Pittman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court that denied relief on the original § 1983 complaint. The unpublished opinion from the appeals court is not binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-07-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-1385

    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 dismissed an appeal from Derneck Pittman of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found Pittman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court that denied relief on the original § 1983 complaint. The unpublished opinion from the appeals court is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Pittman v. Hardee, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Derneck Pittman of a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found Pittman's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing it based on the reasoning of the district court that denied relief on the original § 1983 complaint. The unpublished opinion from the appeals court is not binding precedent.

    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. 99-1385

    DERNECK L. PITTMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DENNIS HARDEE; ROYCE DAVIS; RICKY L. JONES;
    ELKAY SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District
    Judge. (CA-99-27-7-F)

    Submitted:

    July 8, 1999

    Decided:

    July 14, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Derneck L. Pittman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Derneck Pittman appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under
    28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 1999).

    We have reviewed the record

    and the district courts opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

    district court.

    See Pittman v. Hardee, No. CA-99-27-7-F (E.D.N.C.

    Mar. 2, 1999).

    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like