Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lemuel Johnson v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman, 90-6402 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6402 Visitors: 27
Filed: Nov. 19, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 918 F.2d 173 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lemuel JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-6402. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 29, 1990. Decided Nov. 19, 1990. A
More

918 F.2d 173
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lemuel JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-6402.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, United States Magistrate. CA-90-396)

Lemuel Johnson, appellant pro se.

Gayl Branum Carr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Lemuel Johnson appeals from the magistrate's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.* Our review of the record and the magistrate's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate. Johnson v. Jackson, CA-90-396 (E.D.Va. Sept. 4, 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.

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)

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