Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

91-6759 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6759 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 22, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 929 F.2d 692 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION BOARD, L.W. Huffman, Warden, L. Jarvis, Assistant Warden Program, Margret Watkins, Treatment Program Supervisor, Major Armentrout, Lt. Tayl
More

929 F.2d 692
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION BOARD, L.W. Huffman, Warden, L.
Jarvis, Assistant Warden Program, Margret Watkins, Treatment
Program Supervisor, Major Armentrout, Lt. Taylor, Counselor
Lee, Counselor Mueller, In their Individual and Official
Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6759.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.
Decided March 22, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-427-R)

Michael S. Edwards, appellant pro se.

Jeanette Dian Rogers, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Michael S. Edwards 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. Edwards v. Central Classification Bd., CA-90-427-R (W.D.Va. Dec. 31, 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