Murrell v. Best , 16 F. App'x 272 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    SOMJAI MURRELL,                          
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
            No. 01-6558
    DARLENE BEST, Undercover Officer;
    UNNAMED POLICE OFFICER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
    (CA-01-209-2)
    Submitted: July 31, 2001
    Decided: August 21, 2001
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Somjai Murrell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                          MURRELL v. BEST
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Somjai Murrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 1999) complaint. The district court con-
    strued Murrell’s action as one for habeas corpus relief under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) after finding Murrell’s
    action, which alleges he was arrested without probable cause, chal-
    lenged the fact or duration of his incarceration. On appeal, however,
    Murrell argues that the incident that forms the basis of his § 1983
    complaint is unconnected to his current incarceration.
    We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
    find the record before us is inadequate to evaluate the propriety of the
    district court’s action. Accordingly, we remand Murrell’s claim to the
    district court for further proceedings to ascertain if in fact Murrell’s
    allegations in this complaint amount to an attack on a conviction for
    which he was incarcerated. The record, as supplemented, will then be
    returned to this court for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    REMANDED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-6558

Citation Numbers: 16 F. App'x 272

Judges: Diana, Gribbon, Hamilton, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/21/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023