Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

972 F.2d 341

Docket Nos. 92-6478, 92-8047.

McCray v. State

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: July 20, 1992. Decided: August 4, 1992

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-08-04

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 1993 · most notably First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. v. Depinet (1993), Arling C. Matney v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Consolidation Coal Company (1992)

36 federal appellate ·

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

Relies on On Lee v. United States · In re United Steelworkers of America

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-08-04

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (CA-91-2639-JH)

Milton McCray, Appellant/Petitioner Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Carmen Mercedes Shepard, Office of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

Affirmed in No. 92-6478; Petition denied in No. 92-8047.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Milton McCray appeals from the district court's order denying his Motion to Vacate Judgment, which we construe as a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Our review of the record discloses that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because the Defendants' conduct did not violate McCray's rights, and consequently cannot serve as the basis for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). See On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952). Accordingly, we affirm.

¶2

McCray has also filed a mandamus petition which raises the same issues that are the subject of his appeal. These issues do not provide an appropriate basis for mandamus relief. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Consequently, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny McCray's petition. 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.

No. 92-6478-AFFIRMED

No. 92-8047-PETITION DENIED

/972/f2d/341 · .json · Public domain