Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

976 F.2d 725

Docket No. 92-6671.

Easterling v. Davenport Md

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: August 31, 1992 Decided: September 23, 1992

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-09-23

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

Relies on Marie J. Clinton v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-09-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2018

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

30199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-91-406)

Larry D. Easterling, Appellant Pro Se.

Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

M.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

Larry Easterling seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Easterling v. Davenport, No. CA91-406 (M.D.N.C. June 18, 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.

DISMISSED

/976/f2d/725 · .json · Public domain