Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Keith E. Walker v. J.G. Castle A. Miller R.A. Young S.K. Young, and Virginia Department of Corrections Edward Murray, 91-7003 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7003 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 21, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 929 F.2d 695 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Keith E. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.G. CASTLE; A. Miller; R.A. Young; S.K. Young, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Edward Murray, Defendants. No. 91-7003. United States C
More

929 F.2d 695
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Keith E. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J.G. CASTLE; A. Miller; R.A. Young; S.K. Young,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Virginia Department of Corrections; Edward Murray, Defendants.

No. 91-7003.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.
Decided March 21, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-89-919-R)

Keith E. Walker, appellant pro se.

William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Keith E. Walker 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. Walker v. Castle, CA-89-919-R (W.D.Va. Dec. 13, 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.

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