Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

89-7523 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-7523 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jul. 25, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 881 F.2d 1069 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Carl Edward HALL, Antonio Almanza, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Edward C. Morris, Deputy Director, Toni V. Bair, Regional Administrator, R.A. Lipsner, Central Classification, Board
More

881 F.2d 1069
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Carl Edward HALL, Antonio Almanza, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Edward C. Morris, Deputy
Director, Toni V. Bair, Regional Administrator, R.A.
Lipsner, Central Classification, Board Manager, R.M. Muncy,
Warden Virginia State Prison, W.S. Lawhon, Assistant Warden,
Jim Moore, Major, Captain Hubbard, Officer, Patricia
Johnson, Assistant Warden of Treatment, Institutional
Classification Committee Chariman, F. Kafka, Grievance
Coordinator, V. Newton, Counselor, E. Thorn, Counselor,
Lieutenant Parker, Officer, Sergeant Johnson, Officer,
Sergeant Moody, Officer, Sergeant Jallah, Officer, Sergeant
Kitte, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-7523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 1989.
Decided July 25, 1989.

Carl Edward Hall, Antonio Almanza, appellants pro se.

Eric Karl Gould Fiske, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, SPROUSE, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Carl Edward Hall and Antonio Almanza appeal from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Hall v. Murray, C/A No. 88-107-N (E.D.Va. Jan. 12, 1989). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer