Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

96-7484 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7484 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 104 F.3d 359 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Thomas Lee McLAMB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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 Investigat
More

104 F.3d 359

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas Lee McLAMB, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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 Investigator; S.R. Whitten, Grievance
Coordinator; H. Crenshaw, Officer; J. Singleton, Officer;
D. Wilson, Officer; W.R. Speede, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-7484.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1996.
Decided Dec. 19, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-933-2)

Thomas Lee McLamb, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 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

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