Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Arthur Mathisen v. J. Beale, Assistant Warden, Greensville Correctional Center E. Wright, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center Edward Murray, 94-6880 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6880 Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1216 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Arthur MATHISEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. BEALE, Assistant Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; E. Wright, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Edward Murray, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-6880. United States Court of App
More

48 F.3d 1216
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Arthur MATHISEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. BEALE, Assistant Warden, Greensville Correctional Center;
E. Wright, Warden, Greensville Correctional
Center; Edward Murray, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-6880.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided March 6, 1995.

Arthur Mathisen, Appellant Pro Se.

Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint.* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Mathisen v. Beale, No. CA-93-616 (E.D. Va. July 8, 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

*

The case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(c)(1) (West 1993)

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