Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 F.3d 659

Docket Nos. 95-6868, 95-6869, 95-6870.

Tucker v. Vann

Full caption · 3 consolidated cases

  • Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff--v.Randy CRIBB; Lieutenant Britt; Mark Barnhill; Custodian Allgood; Kathy Mercer; Superintendent Barker, Defendants--
  • Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff--v.Custodian INGRAM; Sargeant Jackson, Defendants--
  • Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff--v.Hayes NEATHERY; Penny White; Randall Lee; Lynn Phillips; Rickie Robinson, Defendants--

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: July 25, 1995. Decided: August 15, 1995.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-08-15

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

Relies on Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Evans v. Croom · Reiff v. Sullivan

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-08-15

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., appellant pro se.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying Appellant's "Order to Show Cause--Discovery Filed Shortly for Disposition."* We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v. Cribb, No. CA-93-220-5-H; Tucker v. Ingram, No. CA-93-147-5-H; Tucker v. Neathery, No. CA-93-270-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 1995). 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

*

The district court construed the filings as motions for reconsideration

/64/f3d/659 · .json · Public domain