Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Archie Hodge v. K. Weedon, Deputy Warden L.J. Allen, Regional Administrator Thomas Smith, Deputy Warden Mark Eaton, 93-7132 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-7132 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 31, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 1429 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Archie HODGE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. K. WEEDON, Deputy Warden; L.J. Allen, Regional Administrator; Thomas Smith, Deputy Warden; Mark Eaton, Defendants Appellees. No. 93-7132. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

19 F.3d 1429

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Archie HODGE, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
K. WEEDON, Deputy Warden; L.J. Allen, Regional
Administrator; Thomas Smith, Deputy Warden; Mark
Eaton, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-7132.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1994.
Decided March 31, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-91-2624-4-19BD)

Archie Hodge, appellant pro se.

William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson, Sims, Morrison & Sojourner, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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.* Hodge v. Weedon, No. CA-91-2624-4-19BD (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1993). 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

*

We deny Appellant's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

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