Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Parr v. Batts, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by William Parr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials Samuel Batts, James Smith, and Ronald Angelone. The district court denied relief to Parr and he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Court relied on the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Parr v. Batts, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by William Parr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials Samuel Batts, James Smith, and Ronald Angelone. The district court denied relief to Parr and he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Court relied on the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7525

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by William Parr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials Samuel Batts, James Smith, and Ronald Angelone. The district court denied relief to Parr and he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Court relied on the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Parr v. Batts, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by William Parr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials Samuel Batts, James Smith, and Ronald Angelone. The district court denied relief to Parr and he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Court relied on the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 95-7525

    WILLIAM PARR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SAMUEL L. BATTS, Warden; JAMES
    Regional Administrator; RONALD
    Director of Corrections,

    A. SMITH,
    ANGELONE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-95-292-AM)
    Submitted:

    January 11, 1996

    Decided:

    January 24, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Parr, Appellant Pro Se.
    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 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Parr v. Batts, No. CA-95-292-AM (E.D. Va., Sept. 6, 1995).
    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