Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hinton v. Sifford, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles E. Hinton on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision and dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7788

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles E. Hinton on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision and dispensed with oral argument, finding the 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
    2 views2 pages

    Hinton v. Sifford, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles E. Hinton on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision and dispensed with oral argument, finding the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-7788

    CHARLES E. HINTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AMY M. SIFFORD; RICHARD W. JACOBSEN,
    PATRICK M. MARTIN; RAMONA MASTERTON,

    JR.;
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-541-1-3-MU)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2001

    Decided:

    May 3, 2001

    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Charles E. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles E. Hinton appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint.

    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

    court.

    See Hinton v. Sifford, No. CA-00-541-1-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov.

    15, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like