Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. Rackley, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Lonnie K. Moore filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Joe Rackley, L.M. Pertelli, and L. Edwards which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-08-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6070

    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 a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Lonnie K. Moore filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Joe Rackley, L.M. Pertelli, and L. Edwards which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments 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. Rackley, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Lonnie K. Moore filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Joe Rackley, L.M. Pertelli, and L. Edwards which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal arguments 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-6070

    LONNIE K. MOORE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOE RACKLEY; L. M. PERTELLI; L. EDWARDS, Assistant Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-97-678-R)

    Submitted:

    June 16, 1998

    Decided:

    August 5, 1998

    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Lonnie Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lonnie K. Moore 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. Moore v. Rackley, No. CA-97-678-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 23, 1997).
    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