Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James A. Crudup v. Edward Murray, Director G. L. Bass, Deputy Warden, and Dr. Holland, Medical Director, a Unit Dr. Shou, Medical Doctor, a Unit, 92-7272 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-7272 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 24, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 989 F.2d 492 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James A. CRUDUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward MURRAY, Director; G. L. BASS, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees, and Dr. HOLLAND, Medical Director, A Unit; Dr. Shou, Medical Doctor, A Unit, Defendants. No. 92-7272. United States
More

989 F.2d 492

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James A. CRUDUP, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward MURRAY, Director; G. L. BASS, Deputy Warden,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Dr. HOLLAND, Medical Director, A Unit; Dr. Shou, Medical
Doctor, A Unit, Defendants.

No. 92-7272.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 1, 1993
Decided: March 24, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-411-2)

James A. Crudup, Appellant Pro Se.

Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James A. Crudup 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. Crudup v. Murray, No. CA-92-411-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 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