Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Buckner v. Warden, 96-6005 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6005 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6005 ROBERT LEON BUCKNER; VICKI LORRAINE WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and GERALD DAVIS FULLER; MAURICE LIVELY; ALLEN EDWARD MAPP; JAMES MOYER; KEVIN FARROW; DANIEL GARDNER; PAUL LEO DAVIS; GARY IRELAND; MATHEW PORTER; JOHN TRACY COURTNEY; DELMAR PATRICK; JAMES HARRISON; GEORGE SAMS; CLARENCE PRUITT; MARK MCMILLAN; SHANE MCCALLUM; CLINT MYERS; STEVEN BRADLEY, Plaintiffs, versus WARDEN, Eastern Correctional Institution; WA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6005 ROBERT LEON BUCKNER; VICKI LORRAINE WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and GERALD DAVIS FULLER; MAURICE LIVELY; ALLEN EDWARD MAPP; JAMES MOYER; KEVIN FARROW; DANIEL GARDNER; PAUL LEO DAVIS; GARY IRELAND; MATHEW PORTER; JOHN TRACY COURTNEY; DELMAR PATRICK; JAMES HARRISON; GEORGE SAMS; CLARENCE PRUITT; MARK MCMILLAN; SHANE MCCALLUM; CLINT MYERS; STEVEN BRADLEY, Plaintiffs, versus WARDEN, Eastern Correctional Institution; WARDEN, Maryland Correctional Institution for Women; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-3476-S) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Leon Buckner, Vicki Lorraine White, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buckner v. Warden, No. CA-95-3476-S (D. Md. Dec. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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