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.

Sloan v. Smith

Citation: 331 F. App'x 245Docket: No. 09-1476

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 24, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Samuel H. Sloan appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil action as frivolous. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus affirming the district court's decision for the reasons it provided. The case citation is Sloan v. Smith, No. 6:09-cv-00005-NKM, 2009 WL 453298 (W.D.Va. Feb. 24, 2009). The court decided to dispense with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, making further discussion unnecessary. The opinion is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Frivolous Actions

Application: The appellate court affirms the dismissal of a civil action deemed frivolous by the district court, indicating that the lower court's decision was supported by sufficient reasoning.

Reasoning: Samuel H. Sloan appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil action as frivolous.

Oral Argument Dispensed

Application: The appellate court decided not to hold oral argument, determining that the submitted materials adequately presented the facts and legal issues.

Reasoning: The court decided to dispense with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, making further discussion unnecessary.

Review for Reversible Error

Application: The appellate court found no reversible error upon reviewing the record, thereby upholding the district court's dismissal.

Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus affirming the district court's decision for the reasons it provided.

Unpublished Opinion as Non-Precedential

Application: The opinion in this case is not published and thus does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.

Reasoning: The opinion is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.