Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kevin Nathaniel Jackson v. Edward W. Murray Ellis B. Wright P.A. Terrangi, Deputy Warden L.P.N. Marshall Dr. Holland, 95-6436 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6436 Visitors: 58
Filed: Jun. 28, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 822 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Kevin Nathaniel JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY; Ellis B. Wright; P.A. Terrangi, Deputy Warden; L.P.N. Marshall; Dr. Holland, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-6436. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
More

60 F.3d 822
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Kevin Nathaniel JACKSON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY; Ellis B. Wright; P.A. Terrangi, Deputy
Warden; L.P.N. Marshall; Dr. Holland,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6436.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 28, 1995.

Kevin Nathaniel Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Murray, No. CA-93-1073-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, June 10, Sept. 26, and Nov. 17, 1994; Feb. 22, 1995). 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.

2

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