Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. Dixon, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Stephen Louis Moore under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several North Carolina Department of Correction officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Moore relief. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7370

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Stephen Louis Moore under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several North Carolina Department of Correction officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Moore relief. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Moore v. Dixon, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Stephen Louis Moore under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several North Carolina Department of Correction officials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Moore relief. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit also decided oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case 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. 95-7370

    STEPHEN LOUIS MOORE,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GARY T. DIXON; J. B. FRENCH; ROBEY LEE; KEN
    HARRIS; R. D. BRITTON; BENNIE MACK; CARLTON
    JOYNER; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN
    PHILLIPS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
    (CA-93-644-5-CT-BR)
    Submitted:

    March 21, 1996

    Decided:

    April 4, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stephen Louis Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
    Jacob Leonard Safron,
    Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
    judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Dixon,
    No. CA-93-644-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). 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