Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis Lee Robertson v. C.A. Wells, Sheriff, C.W. Dellinger, Lieutenant, Bedford County Jail, Staff, 91-7507 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7507 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 29, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 931 F.2d 887 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Davis Lee ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. WELLS, Sheriff, C.W. Dellinger, Lieutenant, Bedford County Jail, Staff, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7507. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. S
More

931 F.2d 887
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Davis Lee ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C.A. WELLS, Sheriff, C.W. Dellinger, Lieutenant, Bedford
County Jail, Staff, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7507.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 1991.
Decided April 29, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-90-87-R)

Davis Lee Robertson, appellant pro se.

J.G. Overstreet, County Attorney, Bedford, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Davis Lee Robertson 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. Robertson v. Wells, CA-90-87-R (W.D.Va. Nov. 5, 1990). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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