Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jerry Lee Grant v. B. Norris Vassar Edward W. Murray R.F. Wilson Sara L. Thomas, Defendants, 88-7004 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7004 Visitors: 36
Filed: Apr. 20, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 857 F.2d 1468 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Jerry Lee GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. Norris VASSAR; Edward W. Murray; R.F. Wilson; Sara L. Thomas, Defendants- Appellees. No. 88-7004. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: July
More

857 F.2d 1468
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jerry Lee GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. Norris VASSAR; Edward W. Murray; R.F. Wilson; Sara L.
Thomas, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 88-7004.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 1988.
Decided: Sept. 2, 1988.
Rehearing Denied April 20, 1989.

Jerry Lee Grant, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Likavec (Office of the Attorney General of Virginia), for appellees.

Before K.K. HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Jerry Lee Grant appeals from the magistrate's order refusing relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.* Our review of the record and the magistrate's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate. Grant v. Vassar, C/A No. 87-530-R (E.D.Va. Dec. 21, 1987). 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.

*

The magistrate was exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(2)

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