Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 F.3d 128

Docket No. 93-6978.

James Arthur Brown v. Edward W. Murray Lonnie M. Saunders Larry W. Huffman Donald A. Vorgert L. R. Sparks Doris J. Price

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: June 23, 1994. Decided: July 14, 1994.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-07-14

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 1994-07-14

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. James H. Michael, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-305-R)

James Arthur Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 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 orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions granting summary judgment for Appellees Murray, Saunders, and Huffman, and partial summary judgment for Appellees Vorgert, Sparks, and Price, and accepting the subsequent recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant summary judgment for Appellees Vorgert, Sparks, and Price on the remaining claim discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Murray, No. CA-92-305-R (W.D.Va. Mar. 4 and Aug. 23, 1993). 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

*

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

/30/f3d/128 · .json · Public domain