Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Alphonza Thomas, III v. Officer Porcher, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three police officers. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied Thomas's motion to appoint legal counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Alphonza Thomas, III v. Officer Porcher, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three police officers. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied Thomas's motion to appoint legal counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7610

    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 affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three police officers. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied Thomas's motion to appoint legal counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Alphonza Thomas, III v. Officer Porcher, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief to Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three police officers. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied Thomas's motion to appoint legal counsel.

    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. 14-7610

    ALPHONZA LEONARD PHILLIP THOMAS, III,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    OFFICER PORCHER; OFFICER HOPKINS; OFFICER SOLOMON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
    District Judge. (1:12-cv-00223-TDS-JEP)

    Submitted:

    March 27, 2015

    Decided:

    April 6, 2015

    Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, Appellant Pro Se. William


    L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, appeals the district
    courts

    order

    complaint.
    error.

    denying

    relief

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    (2012)

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the


    Thomas v. Porcher, No. 1:12-cv-00223-TDS-JEP

    (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2014).


    counsel.

    before

    his

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    district court.

    legal

    on

    We deny Thomas motion to appoint

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like