Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-2054 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2054 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 81 F.3d 148 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Martin G. BAYERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neil S. BUCKLEW; Richard Adams; Cathy M. Armstrong; Kay Goodwin; David C. Hardesty, Jr.; John R. Hoblitzell; John G. Hopkins, V; Lucia B. James; Charles W. Manning; Henry R. Marockie;
More

81 F.3d 148

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Martin G. BAYERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Neil S. BUCKLEW; Richard Adams; Cathy M. Armstrong; Kay
Goodwin; David C. Hardesty, Jr.; John R. Hoblitzell; John
G. Hopkins, V; Lucia B. James; Charles W. Manning; Henry
R. Marockie; Paul R. Martinelli; Jon A. Mcbride; Robert
A. McMillan; A. Michael Perry; Joseph W. Powell; C. Allan
Roberts; Henry G. Taylor; David G. Todd; Clifford M.
Trump, Trustees, Individually; Robert M. Bastress; Thomas
Cady; Lisa Eichhorn; Robert G. Lathrop; Majorie
McDiarmid, Committee Members, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-2054.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: March 29, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-144)

Martin G. Bayerle, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Randolph Brooks, FURBEE, AMOS, WEBB & CRITCHFIELD, Fairmont, WV, for Appellees.

N.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bayerle v. Bucklew, No. CA-94-144 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 28, 1995). 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