Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 F.3d 266

Docket Nos. 94-6558, 94-6559.

Glazebrook Blevins v. Murray

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • William H. GLAZEBROOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lawrence BLEVINS; Barry Downer; David Vaughan; William Walker; Theodore Langston; Eli Hunterv.Edward MURRAY; John W. Appleford; E. C. Morris; Doctor Fry; William P. Rogers, "Buck"; Lt. Boyers; Larry Huffman; Sergeant Cleavenger; Captain Hardin; Sergeant Redmon; Captain Day; Nurse Craft; ACC Several Unidentified; Unidentified C/O's at ACC; Sandra Murphy; Major Armentrout; Michael M. Clatterbuck, Defendants-Appellees. Barry DOWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and William H
  • GLAZEBROOK; Lawrence Blevins; David Vaughan; William Walker; Theodore Langston; Eli Hunterv.Edward MURRAY; John W. Appleford; E. C. Morris; Doctor Fry; William P. Rogers, "Buck"; Lt. Boyers; Larry Huffman; Sergeant Cleavenger; Captain Hardin; Sergeant Redmon; Captain Day; Nurse Craft; ACC Several Unidentified; Unidentified C/O's at ACC; Sandra Murphy; Major Armentrout; Michael M. Clatterbuck

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: March 15, 1995. Decided: March 30, 1995.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-03-30

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

Relies on United States v. Saunders · Fulgham v. Webster

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-03-30

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

William H. Glazebrook, Barry Downer, Appellants Pro Se. Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Brewster Stone Rawls, Spotts, Smith, Fain & Rawls, P.C., Richmond, VA; John Britton Russell, Russell, Cantor, Arkema & Edmonds, P.C., Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

Before RUSSELL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellants appeal from the district court's orders of dismissal, summary judgment, and final judgment on jury verdict against them in their action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). Appellant Glazebrook also appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his motion for a new trial and motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's orders, one of which accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, discloses that these appeals are without merit and that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Glazebrook v. Murray, Downer v. Murray, No. CA-91-198-R (W.D.Va. Dec. 2, 1992; Oct. 7, 1993; Apr. 28, 1994; May 18, 1994; June 15; 1994). See also United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989) (it is within the jury's province to assess credibility of witnesses, and appellate court will not disturb jury's finding in this regard). 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

*

We deny Appellant Glazebrook's Motion to Expedite as moot. We also deny his Motion in Limine to Expand the Record, Motion in Limine for a Remedy, Motion for Production of Documents, and Motion in Limine for an Investigation

/51/f3d/266 · .json · Public domain