Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clifford A. Jackson v. Thomas Corcoran, Warden, Individual Fitzhugh Herring Kenneth A. Pitts James Moore Ronald D. Leverette Freda Woods, 94-6292 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6292 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 24, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 25 F.3d 1039 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Clifford A. JACKSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Thomas CORCORAN, Warden, Individual; Fitzhugh Herring; Kenneth A. Pitts; James Moore; Ronald D. Leverette; Freda Woods, Defendants Appellees. No. 94-6292. United States Court of Appeals
More

25 F.3d 1039
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Clifford A. JACKSON, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Thomas CORCORAN, Warden, Individual; Fitzhugh Herring;
Kenneth A. Pitts; James Moore; Ronald D.
Leverette; Freda Woods, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6292.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 24, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-93-2646-MJG)

Clifford A. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Audrey J. S. Carrion, Office of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, 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 and denying his motion for an injunction. 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. Jackson v. Corcoran, No. CA-93-2646-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 3, 1994). 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