Scott v. Moore

Fourth Circuit

Scott v. Moore

6 F. App'x 187

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2001

Docket00-7291

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 187 (Scott v. Moore) 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

Scott v. Moore, 6 F. App'x 187 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lamont Joel Scott 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. * *188 Scott v. Moore, No. CA-00-272-AM (E.D.Va. filed July 31, 2000; entered Aug. 2, 2000). We deny Scott’s motion for general relief and 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.

*

To the extent that the district court held that Scott failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2000), we affirm. We do not express an opinion concerning the constitutionality of the ADA as applied to state prisons.

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lamont Joel Scott 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. * *188 Scott v. Moore, No. CA-00-272-AM (E.D.Va. filed July 31, 2000; entered Aug. 2, 2000). We deny Scott’s motion for general relief and 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.

*

To the extent that the district court held that Scott failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2000), we affirm. We do not express an opinion concerning the constitutionality of the ADA as applied to state prisons.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-moore-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack