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.

William Thomas Ealey, Jr. v. Charles Hawley Thomas Breedlove Jane Doe John Keku, Doctor Doctor Lites Doctor Baloch Doctor Smith Doctor Daniels John Doe Doctor Davenport Ms. Kelly Doctor Shah V.L. Evans Percy Davis Mr. Batten Lynn Phillips

Citations: 74 F.3d 1231; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38833; 1996 WL 15422Docket: 95-7375

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; January 16, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

William Thomas Ealey, Jr. appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against multiple defendants, including various medical staff and officials. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, referencing the district court's reasoning in Ealey v. Hawley, No. CA-95-490-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the case's facts and legal issues had been sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court Rulings

Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of relief based on the reasoning provided in the lower court's opinion.

Reasoning: Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, referencing the district court's reasoning in Ealey v. Hawley, No. CA-95-490-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995).

Oral Argument in Appellate Procedure

Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written submissions.

Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the case's facts and legal issues had been sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.

Review of District Court Decisions

Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for reversible errors but found none, thereby affirming the lower court's ruling.

Reasoning: The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.