descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Anthony Atkins v. L.M. Saunders D.Z. Campbell Correctional Officer Stidham Sergeant Pettry Correctional Officer Fitzgerald Correctional Officer Kirkpatrick

Citations: 54 F.3d 772; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17363; 1995 WL 310170Docket: 94-7197

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; May 22, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Anthony Atkins relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, finding no reversible error. The case was submitted on April 20, 1995, and the decision was made on May 22, 1995. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the submitted materials. Additionally, Atkins' motion for the production of documents was denied. The ruling referenced was Atkins v. Saunders, No. CA-93-695 (W.D.Va. Oct. 6, 1994).

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Motion for Production of Documents

Application: The appellate court denied the plaintiff's motion for the production of documents, indicating a decision based on the sufficiency of existing materials.

Reasoning: Additionally, Atkins' motion for the production of documents was denied.

Denial of Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for the plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, indicating agreement with the lower court's findings.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Anthony Atkins relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Oral Argument Requirement

Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the written submissions, demonstrating efficiency in judicial process.

Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the submitted materials.

Review Standard for Reversible Error

Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the record and the district court's opinion, concluding that there was no reversible error, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The court reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, finding no reversible error.