Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Bell v. Hildebrand, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    An inmate filed a Section 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The inmate appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the Section 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Bell v. Hildebrand, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    An inmate filed a Section 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The inmate appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the Section 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-04-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6021

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    An inmate filed a Section 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The inmate appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the Section 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Bell v. Hildebrand, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    An inmate filed a Section 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The inmate appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the Section 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court 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. 01-6021

    EDWARD NATHANIEL BELL,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FRED D. HILDEBRAND, Superintendent;
    KRIEGER, Captain of Security,

    P.

    J.
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-00-637-7)

    Submitted:

    April 12, 2001

    Decided:

    April 18, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Edward Nathaniel Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Bell, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000)
    complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

    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 Bell v. Hildebrand, No.

    CA-00-637-7 (W.D. Va. filed Dec. 11, 2000; entered Dec. 12, 2000).
    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