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.

Owens-El v. Kapfhammer

Citation: 547 F. App'x 216Docket: No. 13-1474

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; November 24, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Luecretia Dawn Owens-El and Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El appealed a district court's order that denied relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate review of the record revealed no reversible error, leading to an affirmation of the district court's decision. The court granted a motion for an extension of time but denied a motion for appointment of counsel. Oral argument was dispensed with, as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials. The decision is affirmed.

Legal Issues Addressed

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaints

Application: The appellants sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was denied by the district court and the denial was upheld on appeal.

Reasoning: Luecretia Dawn Owens-El and Che’ Quadaffi Williams-El appealed a district court's order that denied relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Affirmation of District Court's Decision

Application: The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's decision, thus affirming it.

Reasoning: The appellate review of the record revealed no reversible error, leading to an affirmation of the district court's decision.

Denial of Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Application: The court denied the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel in the appellate process.

Reasoning: The court granted a motion for an extension of time but denied a motion for appointment of counsel.

Motion for Extension of Time

Application: The court granted the motion for an extension of time in the appellate proceedings.

Reasoning: The court granted a motion for an extension of time but denied a motion for appointment of counsel.

Waiver of Oral Argument

Application: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the court found the submitted materials sufficient to resolve the issues.

Reasoning: Oral argument was dispensed with, as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.