United States of America, Defendant-appellee, v. Raymond Nottingham, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, 843 F.2d 1388 (4th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseRaymond Nottingham, Jr., appellant pro se.
Tommy Eugene Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from its order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is without merit.* Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nottingham, CR No. 83-175-N; C/A No. 87-384-N (E.D. Va. Jun. 9, 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Nottingham's "civil action" complaint sought damages from the police officers who testified against him at trial for allegedly conspiring with the prosecutor to commit perjury against him. Because the police officers were absolutely immune from liability for their testimony, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, (1983), the district court reasonably construed the complaint liberally as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
