Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

92-6710 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6710
Filed: Sep. 24, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 976 F.2d 725 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Anthony CROWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Individually and in his official capacity; Dr. Binford, Individually and in his official capacity; J. Bryant, Individually and in his official capacity; All Unknown Corr
More

976 F.2d 725

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Anthony CROWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David A. GARRAGHTY, Individually and in his official
capacity; Dr. Binford, Individually and in his official
capacity; J. Bryant, Individually and in his official
capacity; All Unknown Correctional Offices, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6710.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 1992
Decided: September 24, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-1452-N)

Anthony Crowell, Appellant Pro Se.

William Rundahl Coleman, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Rich mond, Virginia; Sandra Morris Holleran, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Anthony Crowell 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Crowell v. Garraghty, No. CA-90-1452-N (E.D. Va. June 18, 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