Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 F.3d 123

Docket Nos. 96-6380, 96-6433.

Shaka MacUmba Zulu X, Formerly Known as Michael Wayne Montgomery v. Michael B. Moore Laurie Bessinger, Warden Deputy Warden Wessigner v. Jackson, Prison Guard, Shaka MacUmba Zulu X v. John Doe Laurie Bessinger Vaughn Jackson, Captain

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Shaka Macumba ZULU X, formerly known as Michael Wayne Montgomeryv.Michael B. MOORE; Laurie Bessinger, Warden; Deputy Warden Wessigner; V. Jackson, Prison Guard
  • Shaka Macumba ZULU Xv.John DOE; Laurie Bessinger; Vaughn Jackson, Captain

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Oct. 15, 1996. Decided Nov. 19, 1996.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-11-19

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1996

2 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 1996-11-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se.

William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions accepting the magistrate judge's recommendations and find that the complaints, and these appeals, are frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Zulu X v. Moore, No. CA-95-1605-6-3AK; X v. Doe, No. CA-95-1199-CV-6-3AK (D.S.C. Feb. 28 & Mar. 13, 1996). 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

/103/f3d/123 · .json · Public domain