Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

92-6481 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6481 Visitors: 43
Filed: Aug. 07, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 340 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Lee HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY JAIL; Van Smith, Detective; Mike Downing, Detective; State of North Carolina; Robert W. Fisher, Twenty-eighth Solicitorial District of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
More

972 F.2d 340

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Lee HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY JAIL; Van Smith, Detective; Mike Downing,
Detective; State of North Carolina; Robert W.
Fisher, Twenty-eighth Solicitorial
District of North Carolina,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6481.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 7, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Robert Lee Hood, Appellant Pro Se.

Keith Spurling Snyder, BUNCOMBE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Frank Parrott Graham, ROBERTS, STEVENS & COGBURN, P.A., Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Appellees.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Robert Lee Hood 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hood v. Buncombe County Jail, No. CA-91-78-A-C (W.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1992). 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.

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