Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 F.3d 6

Docket Nos. 95-6034, 95-6035.

John Earley Dillard v. Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General Ronald J. Angelone, Director of Corrections D. Lawson, Acting Warden of Greensville Correctional Center J. F. Maiers, Assistant Warden D-Unit Seg., John Earley Dillard v. Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General Ronald J. Angelone, Director of Corrections D. Lawson, Acting Warden of Greensville Correctional Center J. F. Maiers, Assistant Warden D-Unit Seg.

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • John Earley DILLARDv.Stephen D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney General; Ronald J. Angelone, Director of Corrections; D. Lawson, Acting Warden of Greensville Correctional Center; J. F. Maiers, Assistant Warden D-Unit Seg
  • John Earley DILLARDv.Stephen D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney General; Ronald J. Angelone, Director of Corrections; D. Lawson, Acting Warden of Greensville Correctional Center; J. F. Maiers, Assistant Warden D-Unit Seg

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: February 16, 1995. Decided: March 23, 1995.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-03-23

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on John Wesley Johnson v. George M. Hinkle Henry L. Campbell

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-03-23

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (1988). 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. Dillard v. Rosenthal, No. CA-94-1130-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 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

/50/f3d/6 · .json · Public domain