Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hoover v. Scott Huesby & Assoc, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    A Texas inmate, Nathaniel Hoover, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Scott Huseby & Associates and Barbara Peterson that was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hoover appealed the district court's decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Hoover's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning for denying Hoover's complaint. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-08-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6353

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A Texas inmate, Nathaniel Hoover, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Scott Huseby & Associates and Barbara Peterson that was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hoover appealed the district court's decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Hoover's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning for denying Hoover's complaint. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding 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

    Hoover v. Scott Huesby & Assoc, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    A Texas inmate, Nathaniel Hoover, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against defendants Scott Huseby & Associates and Barbara Peterson that was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hoover appealed the district court's decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found Hoover's appeal to be frivolous, dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning for denying Hoover's complaint. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding 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. 98-6353

    NATHANIEL HOOVER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SCOTT HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, individually and in
    his official capacity; BARBARA PETERSON, individually and in her official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District
    Judge. (CA-97-384-MU)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 1998

    Decided:

    August 6, 1998

    Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Nathaniel Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Nathaniel Hoover, a Texas inmate, appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1998)
    complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have
    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find that
    this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the district court. Hoover v. Scott Huesby & Assoc.,
    No. CA-97-384-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 1998). 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like