Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

90-6777 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6777 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 19, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 911 F.2d 721 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Edward CONNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.S. WHITAKER, John Crow, Program Supervisor, Sergeant Briscoe, C/O, Sergeant Tellman, Sergeant Williams, Sergeant Guffey, Eddie Ross, Unit Programmer, Defendants
More

911 F.2d 721
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Edward CONNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R.S. WHITAKER, John Crow, Program Supervisor, Sergeant
Briscoe, C/O, Sergeant Tellman, Sergeant Williams,
Sergeant Guffey, Eddie Ross, Unit
Programmer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6777.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Woodrow Wilson Jones, Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 89-84-SH)

Edward Conner, Jr., appellant pro se.

Ronna Dawn Gibbs, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Edward Conner, Jr. appeals 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. Conner v. Whitaker, CA-89-84-SH (W.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 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