Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-6034 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6034 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 23, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 50 F.3d 6 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. John Earley DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney General; Ronald J. Angelone, Director of Corrections; D. Lawson, Acting Warden of Greensville Correctional Center; J. F. Maiers, Assistant Warden D-Unit Seg.
More

50 F.3d 6

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Earley DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Stephen D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney General; Ronald J. Angelone,
Director of Corrections; D. Lawson, Acting Warden of
Greensville Correctional Center; J. F. Maiers, Assistant
Warden D-Unit Seg., Defendants-Appellees.
John Earley DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Stephen D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney General; Ronald J. Angelone,
Director of Corrections; D. Lawson, Acting Warden of
Greensville Correctional Center; J. F. Maiers, Assistant
Warden D-Unit Seg., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 95-6034, 95-6035.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 1995.
Decided: March 23, 1995.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (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. Dillard v. Rosenthal, No. CA-94-1130-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 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.

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