Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 F.3d 128

Docket No. 94-6482.

Wilbert Harrison Boyd, Jr. v. James L. Waddle, Captain Charles Johnson, Sergeant

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: June 23, 1994 Decided: July 25, 1994.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-07-25

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Daniel T. Brashear v. William D. Schaeffer Executive Director of the Governor's Office of Justice Assistance Bishop L. Robinson Paul J. Davis Richard A. Lanham Director, Public Justice Center Commutation Project Director, House of Ruth, Incorporated of Baltimore, Maryland Joseph J. Curran, Daniel T. Brashear v. William D. Schaeffer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Maryland and His Heirs or Successors Joseph J. Curran, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Maryland and His Heirs or Successors

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-07-25

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-834-R)

Wilbert Harrison Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Mary Christine Maggard, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Boyd v. Waddle, No. CA-93-834-R (W.D.Va. Mar. 29, 1994). 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

/30/f3d/128 · .json · Public domain