Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

94-6563 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6563 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 02, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 128 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. David CARR, Plaintiff Appellant, and Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas J. HUN, Commissioner of Corrections; George Trent, Warden West Virginia State Penitentiary; Ronald Gregory, Former Commissioner of Corrections; C
More

30 F.3d 128

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David CARR, Plaintiff Appellant,
and Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Plaintiff,
v.
Nicholas J. HUN, Commissioner of Corrections; George Trent,
Warden West Virginia State Penitentiary; Ronald Gregory,
Former Commissioner of Corrections; Carl Legursky, Former
Warden West Virginia Penitentiary; Jim Liller, Former
Acting Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center; John Doe,
Warden, Pruntytown Correctional Center, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994.
Decided: August 2, 1994.

David Carr, Appellant Pro Se.

Chad M. Cardinal, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Carr v. Hun, CA No. 92-134-W (N.D.W. Va. May 3, 1994). 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