Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 F.3d 1232

Docket No. 93-6210.

Brigman v. Godwin

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 16, 1993. Decided: August 2, 1993.

Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1994

20 federal appellate ·

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1993-08-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-295-5-D)

Cary McKenzie Brigman, Appellant Pro Se.

Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Cary McKenzie Brigman appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brigman v. Godwin, No. CA-91-295-5-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 1992). 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

/1/f3d/1232 · .json · Public domain