Madison v. Commonwealth of VA

Fourth Circuit

Madison v. Commonwealth of VA

56 F. App'x 205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

Docket03-6015

StatusUnpublished

This text of 56 F. App'x 205 (Madison v. Commonwealth of VA) 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

Madison v. Commonwealth of VA, 56 F. App'x 205 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Madison v. Virginia, No. CA-02-1232-7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 27 & Dec. 17, 2002). On appeal, Madison asserts that the district court misconstrued a portion of his complaint. We find that his claims — even as clarified — were subject to dismissal. See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86,103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); see also McMahan v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 964 F.2d 1462, 1467 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that appellate courts may “affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record”). 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.

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Madison v. Virginia, No. CA-02-1232-7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 27 & Dec. 17, 2002). On appeal, Madison asserts that the district court misconstrued a portion of his complaint. We find that his claims — even as clarified — were subject to dismissal. See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86,103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); see also McMahan v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 964 F.2d 1462, 1467 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that appellate courts may “affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record”). 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)

56 F. App'x 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-v-commonwealth-of-va-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack