904 F.2d 700 (4th Cir. 1990), 89-5635, Lovern v. Lyons
|Citation:||904 F.2d 700|
|Party Name:||W. Michael LOVERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug LYONS, Counselor; Physician's Attendant Weldon; Dr. Powell; Mark Henry; Physician's Attendant Kelly; Officer Gonzales; Lt. Chalmers; Capt. Brewe; Mr. Falzone; Mr. Perry; Norman A. Carlson; Sam Samples; Lt. Doddrill; Jane Doe; Mr. Farmer; Mr. Chadwick; Dr. McWay; Mr. Willingham, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||May 29, 1990|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted: Jan. 25, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-87-703-CRT).
William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender; Edwin C. Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, N.C., for Appellant.
Margaret Person Currin, United States Attorney; Stephen A. West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
W. Michael Lovern appeals the order and judgment of the district court holding him in criminal contempt and fining him $100 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A.§ 401 (West 1966). [*] Because the evidence was insufficient to conclude that Lovern's conduct constituted an obstruction of the administration of justice, we reverse.
Lovern, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, North Carolina (Butner), proceeding pro se, filed an Emergency Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he raised a number of Bivens-type complaints about his treatment at Butner. The defendants, prison and medical officers at Butner, moved to dismiss Lovern's action or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The district court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Wallace W. Dixon who filed a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that Lovern's action be dismissed.
Lovern subsequently filed a pleading entitled "Motion in Response to Magistrate's Memorandum and Recommendation" objecting to the recommendation in which he stated in part:
As an individual who believes in god [sic], this country, and the system, I have never been more shocked by a written opinion from the court. Judge Dixon's memorandum shows so much malice and prejudice towards the plaintiff that it's hard to keep in mind that he is suppose [sic] to be an independent trier of fact. In this case he sounds more like the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Obviously his loyalty is still back at his old office.
* * *
* * *
The Judge doesn't waste any time in misquoting the real facts.... This is the first sign of just how uninterested the Judge is in plaintiff's pleadings.
* * *
* * *
Here again the Judge obviously believes the defendant's [sic] since the plaintiff's affidavit tells a different story.... If the court will just readALL of plaintiff's pleadings that have been filed in this case, you will see a completely different story.... All Judge Dixon has done is write a brief that primarily says...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP