Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Kevin Siler v. Eugene Nuth, Warden, M.C.A.C. Richard Lanham, Commissioner of Correction Archie Gee, 106 F.3d 391, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an appeals court case summary that affirms the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Kevin Siler in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Siler's complaint and motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Kevin Siler v. Eugene Nuth, Warden, M.C.A.C. Richard Lanham, Commissioner of Correction Archie Gee, 106 F.3d 391, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The document is an appeals court case summary that affirms the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Kevin Siler in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Siler's complaint and motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-02-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 106 F.3d 391 Docket: 96-7411

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is an appeals court case summary that affirms the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Kevin Siler in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Siler's complaint and motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Kevin Siler v. Eugene Nuth, Warden, M.C.A.C. Richard Lanham, Commissioner of Correction Archie Gee, 106 F.3d 391, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an appeals court case summary that affirms the district court's denial of relief to Appellant Kevin Siler in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Siler's complaint and motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    106 F.

    3d 391

    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.
    Kevin SILER, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    Eugene NUTH, Warden, M.C.A.C.; Richard Lanham,
    Commissioner
    of Correction; Archie Gee, Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 96-7411.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Jan. 9, 1997.
    Decided: Feb. 5, 1997.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-323-MJG)
    Kevin Siler, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General,
    Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (1994) complaint and motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have
    reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Siler v.
    Nuth, No. CA-96-323-MJG (D. Md. Aug. 12, 1996; Sept. 20, 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.


    2

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like