Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

19-1382 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1382 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 19, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 948 F.2d 1282 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joseph L. PENLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan DUBOIS; Karen Paden Boyle; James C. Fox; William E. Martin; John Bolor; Harry Higleg; George David Pratt; Margaret P. Currin; Luella Joyce Penland; Robert D. Floyd; Earl W. Britt; T
More

948 F.2d 1282

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Joseph L. PENLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Alan DUBOIS; Karen Paden Boyle; James C. Fox; William E.
Martin; John Bolor; Harry Higleg; George David Pratt;
Margaret P. Currin; Luella Joyce Penland; Robert D. Floyd;
Earl W. Britt; Terrence W. Boyle; Malcolm J. Howard;
Charles K. McCotter, Jr.; Alexander B. Denson; Wallace W.
Dixon; J. Rich Leonard, Clerk; Samuel W. Phillips; John
Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7246.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 28, 1991.
Decided Nov. 19, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-455-D)

Joseph L. Penland, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, SPROUSE, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Joseph L. Penland appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny Penland's request that the Court serve copies of his informal brief on the defendants and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Penland v. DuBois, No. CA-91-455-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 1991). 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