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.

James A. Butler v. Howard C. Vick, Ausa, and John Doe, Agents

Citations: 72 F.3d 126; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39534; 1995 WL 747311Docket: 95-6997

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; December 14, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

James A. Butler, the appellant, filed a Bivens action against Howard C. Vick, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), and unnamed agents. The appeal comes from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the district court dismissed Butler's action and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's orders. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision based on its reasoning. The case citation indicates that the opinion is unpublished, and it notes the disfavor of citing such dispositions except for specific legal purposes. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the court found the existing materials sufficient for decision-making.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review of District Court Decisions

Application: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's dismissal of Butler's action and denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no reversible error and affirming the decision.

Reasoning: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's orders. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision based on its reasoning.

Bivens Action Against Federal Officials

Application: The appellant, James A. Butler, filed a Bivens action against a federal official and unnamed agents, challenging the dismissal of his case by the district court.

Reasoning: James A. Butler, the appellant, filed a Bivens action against Howard C. Vick, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), and unnamed agents.

Citing Unpublished Opinions

Application: The opinion in this case is unpublished, and the court notes the general disfavor of citing such dispositions except for specific legal purposes.

Reasoning: The case citation indicates that the opinion is unpublished, and it notes the disfavor of citing such dispositions except for specific legal purposes.

Oral Argument in Appellate Proceedings

Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the written records and briefs provided sufficient information for deciding the case.

Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the court found the existing materials sufficient for decision-making.