Briscoe Arthur Harris, Ii, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Rudolph Bumgardner, Iii, Defendant-appellee, 888 F.2d 1386 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseBriscoe Arthur Harris II, appellant pro se.
Gregory E. Lucyk, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for appellee.
Before K.K. HALL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Briscoe Arthur Harris, II appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.* Harris v. Bumgardner, CA-88-644-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1989). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED.
Harris presented certain documents for consideration for the first time on appeal. Because the documents were neither submitted to nor considered by the district court, we cannot consider them on appeal. Further, Harris contends on appeal that he was illegally prosecuted. Because he raises no facts to support this argument and because it was not raised before the district court, we decline to address it
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.
