Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Langston Oliver v. Herman Bridges, Chairman of Disciplinary Committee, Robert T. Davis, Head Programmer, 90-6069 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6069 Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 30, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 911 F.2d 723 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Langston OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herman BRIDGES, Chairman of Disciplinary Committee, Robert T. Davis, Head Programmer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-6069. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circu
More

911 F.2d 723
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Langston OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Herman BRIDGES, Chairman of Disciplinary Committee, Robert
T. Davis, Head Programmer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6069.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 25, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Aug. 30, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (C/A No. 89-421-G)

Langston Oliver, appellant pro se.

Lucien Capone, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Langston Oliver 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Bridges, C/A No. 89-421-G (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 1990). 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