Frizell Stephens, Petitioner-appellant, v. R. Muncy, Respondent-appellee, 925 F.2d 1457 (4th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseBefore DONALD RUSSELL, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frizell Stephens appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint.* Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stephens v. Muncy, CA-90-1430-N (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 1990). 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.
Stephens filed his lawsuit as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, because Stephens seeks to remedy a denial of access to state courts, we consider his filing as a complaint filed more appropriately pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970 (1978) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
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.
