Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Terry Lee Klinedinst v. Anthony Hathaway, III David Elliott Wallace Gibbs, 91-7356 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7356 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 14, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 953 F.2d 638 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Terry Lee KLINEDINST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III; David Elliott; Wallace Gibbs, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7356. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 30, 1991. Decided Jan. 14, 1992.
More

953 F.2d 638

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Terry Lee KLINEDINST, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Anthony HATHAWAY, III; David Elliott; Wallace Gibbs,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7356.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 1991.
Decided Jan. 14, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, No. CA-91-604-CRT-F, James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.

Terry Lee Klinedinst, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Terry Lee Klinedinst appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). 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.* Klinedinst v. Hathaway, No. CA-91-604-CRT-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 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.

*

The North Carolina statutes referenced in Klinedinst's complaint do not give Klinedinst a protected liberty interest in continued participation in vocational education programs. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)

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