Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

92-7047 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-7047 Visitors: 50
Filed: Feb. 08, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 985 F.2d 553 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Percy L. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gil INGRAM, Regional Director; Patrick Whalen, Warden; Bill Stuby, Associate Warden; Frank Brooks, Factory Manager; Keith Davis, Business Manager; Clara Hughes, Cost Accountant; Patrick Meal
More

985 F.2d 553

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Percy L. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Gil INGRAM, Regional Director; Patrick Whalen, Warden;
Bill Stuby, Associate Warden; Frank Brooks, Factory
Manager; Keith Davis, Business Manager; Clara Hughes, Cost
Accountant; Patrick Mealy, Supervisory Contract Specialist,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-7047.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 15, 1993
Decided: February 8, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-44-R)

Percy L. Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Percy L. Henry appeals from the district court's order denying relief in this Bivens-type action. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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.* Henry v. Ingram, No. CA-92-44-R (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 1992). 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

*

Because Henry was terminated from his job, instead of merely losing benefits associated with that job, the applicable regulation is 28 C.F.R. § 345.12(d) (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