Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kenneth L. Henderson v. Thomas R. Corcoran Ariane Swann Ruth J. Vogal Lloyd L. Waters, 92-6807 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6807 Visitors: 48
Filed: Aug. 24, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 4 F.3d 985 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Kenneth L. HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas R. CORCORAN; Ariane Swann; Ruth J. Vogal; Lloyd L. Waters, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6807. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: December 8, 1992. Decided:
More

4 F.3d 985

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Kenneth L. HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas R. CORCORAN; Ariane Swann; Ruth J. Vogal; Lloyd L.
Waters, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6807.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 8, 1992.
Decided: August 24, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-91-3437-L)

Kenneth L. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Beth Kushner, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Kenneth L. Henderson appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Henderson v. Corcoran, No. CA-91-3437-L (D. Md. July 1, 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