Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Rutherford v. Alderman, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tony Rutherford appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his civil rights complaint against John Alderman, Steptoe & Johnson law firm, and other unnamed defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appeals court denied Rutherford's motion to supplement the docket.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Rutherford v. Alderman, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Tony Rutherford appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his civil rights complaint against John Alderman, Steptoe & Johnson law firm, and other unnamed defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appeals court denied Rutherford's motion to supplement the docket.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-1367

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tony Rutherford appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his civil rights complaint against John Alderman, Steptoe & Johnson law firm, and other unnamed defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appeals court denied Rutherford's motion to supplement the docket.

    Copyright:

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

    Rutherford v. Alderman, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tony Rutherford appealed a district court ruling denying relief on his civil rights complaint against John Alderman, Steptoe & Johnson law firm, and other unnamed defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appeals court denied Rutherford's motion to supplement the docket.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-1367

    TONY E. RUTHERFORD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    JOHN ALDERMAN, III; STEPTOE & JOHNSON; MR/MRS
    X, Y, AND/OR Z,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-96-617)
    Submitted:

    May 29, 1997

    Decided:

    August 13, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tony E. Rutherford, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Paul McGowan, Jeffrey
    Kent Phillips, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986 (1994). We
    have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting
    the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Rutherford v. Alderman, No. CA-96-617 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 7, 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

    Appellant's "Motion to Supplement Docket" is hereby denied.


    2

    You might also like