Lewis v. Hicklin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 19, 2000
Docket00-7034
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lewis v. Hicklin (Lewis v. Hicklin) 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
Lewis v. Hicklin, (4th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7034

DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM CLOUD HICKLIN, IV, Attorney; UNKNOWN COURT REPORTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-429-7)

Submitted: September 26, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Dwight David Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Lewis v. Hicklin, No. CA-00-429-7 (W.D.

Va. July 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* Although the district court’s order did not address Lewis’ claim against the “Unknown Court Reporter,” the district court’s reasoning is equally applicable to the court reporter. Conse- quently, there is no basis for further adjudication of this matter unless Lewis can demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. See Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386-87 (1978) (finding appellate jurisdiction “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the action, provided no detriment to the par- ties). We therefore find that despite the district court’s over- sight, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lewis v. Hicklin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-hicklin-ca4-2000.