Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robert Hicks v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., 19-4104 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4104 Visitors: 47
Filed: Feb. 18, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 955 F.2d 41 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-7359. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 3, 1992. Decided Feb. 18, 1992. Appeal from the United States District
More

955 F.2d 41

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-7359.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 18, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-524-R)

Robert Hicks, appellant pro se.

Gayl Y. Branum-Carr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Robert Hicks appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988).* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Hicks v. Jackson, No. CA-91-524-R (W.D.Va. Nov. 26, 1991). 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.

*

The district court referred this matter to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(2) (West Supp.1991)

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