Narrative Opinion Summary
Terry Fitzgerald Zimmerman, the appellant, filed a pro se appeal against J.V. Turlington and others, the appellees, following a denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The appeal was submitted on December 14, 1995, and decided on January 17, 1996. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, consisting of Chief Judge Ervin and Circuit Judges Widener and Wilkins, reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, concluding that there was no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's decision based on its reasoning in the case Zimmerman v. Turlington. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials. The final ruling was an affirmation of the lower court's order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court's Rulingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, relying on the reasoning provided in the case Zimmerman v. Turlington.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court's decision based on its reasoning in the case Zimmerman v. Turlington.
Determination of Oral Argument Necessitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the submitted materials.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials.
Review of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaintssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the appellant's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the district court's denial of relief, affirming the lower court's decision due to lack of reversible error.
Reasoning: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, consisting of Chief Judge Ervin and Circuit Judges Widener and Wilkins, reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, concluding that there was no reversible error.