Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robert Lee Brock, A/K/A Two Souls Walker v. J.A. Smith, Jr., Regional Director of Department of Corrections of Suffolk, Virginia, 95-7543 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7543 Visitors: 37
Filed: Dec. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 72 F.3d 126 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Lee BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.A. SMITH, Jr., Regional Director of Department of Corrections of Suffolk, Virginia, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-7543. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Ci
More

72 F.3d 126

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Lee BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
J.A. SMITH, Jr., Regional Director of Department of
Corrections of Suffolk, Virginia, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-7543.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 1995.
Decided Dec. 15, 1995.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-465-2)

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brock v. Smith, No. CA-95-465-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14 & 26, 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