Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Levy v. Fresh Fields Market, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles William Levy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Fresh Fields Market, Inc. for lack of state action. The district court judge had denied Levy's complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented for the court to make its decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Levy v. Fresh Fields Market, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    53 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles William Levy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Fresh Fields Market, Inc. for lack of state action. The district court judge had denied Levy's complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented for the court to make its decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-2122

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles William Levy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Fresh Fields Market, Inc. for lack of state action. The district court judge had denied Levy's complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented for the court to make its decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    53 views2 pages

    Levy v. Fresh Fields Market, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished, per curiam opinion affirming the district court's denial of relief to Charles William Levy on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Fresh Fields Market, Inc. for lack of state action. The district court judge had denied Levy's complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented for the court to make its decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-2122

    CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
    (CA-96-742-A)
    Submitted:

    October 17, 1996

    Decided:

    October 23, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se.
    Nicholas Drakoulis
    Vlissides, VLISSIDES & KEISLER, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint for want of state
    action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm. 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