Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Wright v. Huffman, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ernest Wright appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Wright v. Huffman, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Ernest Wright appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6452

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ernest Wright appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Wright v. Huffman, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ernest Wright appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials. The unpublished opinion does not constitute 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. 02-6452

    ERNEST W. WRIGHT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MR. HUFFMAN, Director; WARDEN SAUNDERS; NURSE
    WILLIS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-01-1910-AM)

    Submitted:

    May 16, 2002

    Decided:

    May 28, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Ernest W. Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ernest W. Wright appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under
    28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 2001).

    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.
    Wright v. Huffman, No. CA-01-1910-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2002).

    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