Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

88-7232 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7232 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 14, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 875 F.2d 316 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Franklin TESACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WATERFORD PARK, INC., Steven W. Campbell, Security Guard, Gary Durham, Security Guard, Roy Hart, Security Guard, Richard E. Holingbaugh, Security Guard, Unknown Offi
More

875 F.2d 316
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Franklin TESACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WATERFORD PARK, INC., Steven W. Campbell, Security Guard,
Gary Durham, Security Guard, Roy Hart, Security Guard,
Richard E. Holingbaugh, Security Guard, Unknown Officers of
Waterford Park, Inc., Joseph Geisse, III, Hancock County
Deputy Sheriff, William Webster, Hancock County Sheriff,
Walter Nogay, Hancock County Magistrate, Thomas D. Hagg,
Hancock County Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-7232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 1989.
Decided May 3, 1989.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied June 14, 1989.

Franklin Tesack, appellant pro se.

Elba Gillenwater, Jr. (Seibert, Kasserman, Farnsworth & Gillenwater, James F. Companion, Schrader, Stamp, Byrd, Byrum & Companion, M. Eric Frankovitch, Volk, Frankovitch, Anetakis, Recht, Robertson & Hellerstedt, for appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and K.K. HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Franklin Tesack appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Tesack v. Waterford Park, Inc, C/A No. 84-226-E (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 3, 1988). 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