Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lamar Perryman v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Blaze Plageman, Warden, Patrick Henry Correctional Unit No. 28, 90-6899 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6899 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 14, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 920 F.2d 927 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lamar PERRYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Blaze Plageman, Warden, Patrick Henry Correctional Unit No. 28, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-6899. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth
More

920 F.2d 927
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lamar PERRYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Blaze Plageman, Warden, Patrick
Henry Correctional Unit No. 28, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6899.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 1990.
Decided Dec. 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-89-884-AM)

Lamar Perryman, appellant pro se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Lamar Perryman 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. Perryman v. Murray, CA-89-884-AM (Aug. 30, 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