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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Flax v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Antonio Flax filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various law enforcement officials and departments. The magistrate judge denied Flax relief and Flax appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, finding no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Flax v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Antonio Flax filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various law enforcement officials and departments. The magistrate judge denied Flax relief and Flax appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, finding no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6230

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Antonio Flax filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various law enforcement officials and departments. The magistrate judge denied Flax relief and Flax appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, finding no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as 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
    11 views2 pages

    Flax v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Antonio Flax filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various law enforcement officials and departments. The magistrate judge denied Flax relief and Flax appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, finding no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as 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. 99-6230

    ANTONIO S. FLAX,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Sheriff; JERRY
    TON, Major; DON EDWARD PHILLIPS;
    FISHER,
    Deputy
    Sheriff;
    DEPUTY
    PARRISH; SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT OF THE
    RICHMOND; ELLERY D. LUNDY, Deputy;
    EAMES, Sergeant,

    MIDDLEGEORGE
    SHERIFF
    CITY OF
    MICHAEL
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-97-387)

    Submitted:

    June 17, 1999

    Decided:

    June 24, 1999

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Antonio S. Flax, Appellant Pro Se. Anton Joseph Stelly, THOMPSON,
    SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio S. Flax appeals the magistrate judges order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.*

    We

    have reviewed the record and the magistrate judges opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    of the magistrate judge. See Flax v. Mitchell, No. CA-97-387 (E.D.


    Va. Jan. 20, 1999).

    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

    judge.

    The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate


    See 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), (c)(3) (1994).
    2

    You might also like