Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

978 F.2d 1255

Docket No. 92-6939.

Holley v. Rostafinsky

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: October 26, 1992 Decided: November 13, 1992

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-11-13

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

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. So-Lo Foods, Inc., T/a Bi-Lo So-Lo Foods, Inc., T/a Valu Food

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-11-13

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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, District Judge. (CA-92-42)

James Thomas Holley, Appellant Pro Se.

Brewster Stone Rawls, William Rittenhouse Culbreth, Rilee, Cantor & Russell, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

James Thomas Holley appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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. Holley v. Rostafinsky, No. CA-92-42 (W.D. Va. July 31, 1992). 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

/978/f2d/1255 · .json · Public domain