Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carl Edward Hall v. David A. Williams, Warden Randall B. Kahelski, Assistant Warden Joe Edmonds, Adjustment Committee Chairman, 90-6204 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6204 Visitors: 67
Filed: Feb. 03, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 953 F.2d 638 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Carl Edward HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. WILLIAMS, Warden; Randall B. Kahelski, Assistant Warden; Joe Edmonds, Adjustment Committee Chairman, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-6204. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circ
More

953 F.2d 638

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Carl Edward HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David A. WILLIAMS, Warden; Randall B. Kahelski, Assistant
Warden; Joe Edmonds, Adjustment Committee
Chairman, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6204.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 14, 1992.
Decided Feb. 3, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-1524-N)

Carl Edward Hall, appellant pro se.

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

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Carl Edward Hall appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Hall v. Williams, No. CA-90-1524-N (E.D.Va. Dec. 10, 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