Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roger Dale Grubb v. M. H. Balouche, Dr., and John Doe, Administrator Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., 94-6604 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6604 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 29, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Roger Dale GRUBB, Plaintiff Appellant, v. M. H. BALOUCHE, Dr., Defendant Appellee, and John DOE, Administrator; Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Defendants. No. 94-6604. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 23,
More

30 F.3d 129

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Roger Dale GRUBB, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
M. H. BALOUCHE, Dr., Defendant Appellee,
and John DOE, Administrator; Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Defendants.

No. 94-6604.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994.
Decided: July 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-93-198-BR)

Roger Dale Grubb, Appellant Pro Se.

Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

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. Grubb v. Balouche, No. CA-93-198-BR (E.D.N.C. May 2, 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. The motions for oral argument and appointment of counsel are denied.

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