Davis v. Reveley

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. Reveley

439 F. App'x 235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 2011

DocketNo. 11-6294

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 439 F. App'x 235 (Davis v. Reveley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Reveley, 439 F. App'x 235 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Cleton Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint alleging that his court-appointed attorney failed to represent him adequately at trial. Because a court-appointed defender “does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding,” Davis’ former attorney cannot be sued under Section 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-19, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Reveley, No. 1:10-cv-01383-LO-TRJ (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Cleton Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint alleging that his court-appointed attorney failed to represent him adequately at trial. Because a court-appointed defender “does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding,” Davis’ former attorney cannot be sued under Section 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-19, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Reveley, No. 1:10-cv-01383-LO-TRJ (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F. App'x 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-reveley-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack