Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ricky A. Walker v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Sergeant Hicks, (8 to 4 Shift), Commissioner of Correction, 91-7514 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7514 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 22, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 929 F.2d 695 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ricky A. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Sergeant Hicks, (8 to 4 Shift), Commissioner of Correction, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7514. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circu
More

929 F.2d 695
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ricky A. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Sergeant Hicks, (8 to 4 Shift),
Commissioner of Correction, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7514.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.
Decided March 22, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CA-90-1609-HAR)

Ricky A. Walker, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Timothy James Paulus, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Ricky A. Walker 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. Walker v. Rollins, CA-90-1609-HAR (D.Md. Dec. 20, 1990). 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