Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McLamb v. Morris, 96-7484 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7484 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7484 THOMAS LEE MCLAMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. C. MORRIS, Deputy Director; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; C. H. ALLEN, Regional Ombudsman; J. M. HOLMES, Regional Ombudsman; C. E. THOMPSON, Warden; LEA, Institution In- vestigator; S. R. WHITTEN, Grievance Coordi- nator; H. CRENSHAW, Officer; J. SINGLETON, Officer; D. WILSON, Officer; W. R. SPEEDE, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United State
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7484 THOMAS LEE MCLAMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. C. MORRIS, Deputy Director; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; C. H. ALLEN, Regional Ombudsman; J. M. HOLMES, Regional Ombudsman; C. E. THOMPSON, Warden; LEA, Institution In- vestigator; S. R. WHITTEN, Grievance Coordi- nator; H. CRENSHAW, Officer; J. SINGLETON, Officer; D. WILSON, Officer; W. R. SPEEDE, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-933-2) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Lee McLamb, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. McLamb v. Morris, No. CA-93-933-2 (E.D. Va. June 20 & Sept. 13, 1996). 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 3
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