Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jay Scot Riley v. R. A. Young W. D. Blankenship D. L. Smith P. L. Huffman Karen Polinsky, 92-6712 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6712 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 17, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 986 F.2d 1414 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Jay Scot RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. A. YOUNG; W. D. Blankenship; D. L. Smith; P. L. Huffman; Karen Polinsky, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6712. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: January 7, 1993 Dec
More

986 F.2d 1414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jay Scot RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. A. YOUNG; W. D. Blankenship; D. L. Smith; P. L.
Huffman; Karen Polinsky, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6712.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 7, 1993
Decided: February 17, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-429-R)

Jay Scot Riley, Appellant Pro Se.

William Rundahl Coleman, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Jay Scot Riley 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. Riley v. Young, No. CA-91-429-R (W.D. Va. June 23, 1992). We deny Riley's "Motion for Order Stipulating Additional Law Library Time," his "Motion for Defendant-Appellee Huffman to Return Legal Materials," and his "Motion to Produce Records." 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