James E.M. Spencer v. Jessie L. Spencer, Mildred Hassell, Nathan T. Everett, Mitchell Norton, Judge Hardison

833 F.2d 310, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14347, 1987 WL 38206
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 1987
Docket87-7640
StatusUnpublished

This text of 833 F.2d 310 (James E.M. Spencer v. Jessie L. Spencer, Mildred Hassell, Nathan T. Everett, Mitchell Norton, Judge Hardison) 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
James E.M. Spencer v. Jessie L. Spencer, Mildred Hassell, Nathan T. Everett, Mitchell Norton, Judge Hardison, 833 F.2d 310, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14347, 1987 WL 38206 (4th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

833 F.2d 310
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James E.M. SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jessie L. SPENCER, Mildred Hassell, Nathan T. Everett,
Mitchell Norton, Judge Hardison, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-7640.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 24, 1987.
Decided Oct. 30, 1987.

James E.M. Spencer, appellant pro se.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James E.M. Spencer appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Spencer alleged that the defendants granted his wife a divorce through trickery and forgery of records. We agree with the district court that the defendants have absolute immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). We further find that Spencer essentially seeks intervention by the district court into the handling of the divorce proceeding by the state court. The proper method of challenging rulings or actions by the state court is, however, by appeal within the state system, and ultimately by petition to the United States Supreme Court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). See also Ganey v. Barefoot, 749 F.2d 1124, 1127 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1019 (1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively. We deny Spencer's motion for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
833 F.2d 310, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14347, 1987 WL 38206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-em-spencer-v-jessie-l-spencer-mildred-hassell-nathan-t-ca4-1987.