Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

94-7196 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7196 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 16, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1218 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Timothy WADDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. KEEN, Correctional Officer, KMCC; Janet Salyers, Inmate Hearings Officer, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; Robert J. Beck, Warden; Richard A. Young, Regional Administrator, Department
More

48 F.3d 1218
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Timothy WADDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. KEEN, Correctional Officer, KMCC; Janet Salyers, Inmate
Hearings Officer, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; Robert
J. Beck, Warden; Richard A. Young, Regional Administrator,
Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7196.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 16, 1995.

Timothy Waddell, appellant pro se.

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

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment 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. Waddell v. Keen, No. CA-93-944-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 22, 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

*

Appellant's notice of appeal was not timely as to the underlying order. Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider that order. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)

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