Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kendrick v. Johnson, 95-7779 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7779 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7779 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, Augusta Correctional Center; JERRY W. KILGORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-991-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BU
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7779 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, Augusta Correctional Center; JERRY W. KILGORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-991-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for an evidentiary hearing and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kendrick v. Johnson, No. CA-94-991-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 27, 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. AFFIRMED 2
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