Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

90-6417 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6417 Visitors: 69
Filed: May 13, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 932 F.2d 963 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. JOHNATHAN LEE X, v. Raymond MUNCY, Warden, Virginia State Penitentiary, R.F. Wilson, Manager of Court and Legal Services of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Sarah Thomas, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90
More

932 F.2d 963
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
JOHNATHAN LEE X,
v.
Raymond MUNCY, Warden, Virginia State Penitentiary, R.F.
Wilson, Manager of Court and Legal Services of the
Virginia Department of Corrections,
Sarah Thomas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6417.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 1991.
Decided May 13, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-88-261-N)

Johnathan Lee X, appellant pro se.

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

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Johnathan Lee X 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. X v. Muncy, CA-88-261-N (E.D.Va. Sept. 19, 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