Akbar v. McKinney

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided January 14, 2002

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-01-14

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2002

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hudson v. Palmer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-01-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Karim Abdul Akbar appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Akbar’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * Akbar v. McKinney, No. CA-99-496 (M.D.N.C. July 20, 2001). 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.

¶2 AFFIRMED.

¶3 To the extent Akbar alleges a due process violation, we note Akbar had an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).