Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Anthony Bolden v. Julian U. Pugh, Manager, Central Criminal Records, Department of Corrections, 91-6563 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6563 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 19, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 935 F.2d 1285 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael Anthony BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julian U. PUGH, Manager, Central Criminal Records, Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-6563. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
More

935 F.2d 1285
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael Anthony BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Julian U. PUGH, Manager, Central Criminal Records,
Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-6563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 3, 1991.
Decided June 19, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-90-1750-N)

Michael Anthony Bolden, appellant pro se.

Jeanette Dian Rogers, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Michael Anthony Bolden 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. Bolden v. Pugh, CA-90-1750-N (E.D.Va. Apr. 3, 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