Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 21, 1996. It involves plaintiff Lloyd Steven Lane appealing the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Lane relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 77 F.3d 469 Docket: 95-6874

    Original Title

    Lloyd Steven Lane v. Roosevelt Strickland Byron Walters Barry Deese, and G. Wayne Spears Lynn C. Phillips Carol Whitaker H.R. Brigman John Williams Jerry McQueen L.W. Moore Sandra Thomas Yvonne Locklear Vicky Caulder John Bullock James Sanderson John R. Mills, 77 F.3d 469, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 21, 1996. It involves plaintiff Lloyd Steven Lane appealing the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Lane relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 21, 1996. It involves plaintiff Lloyd Steven Lane appealing the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Lane relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    77 F.

    3d 469

    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.
    Lloyd Steven LANE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Roosevelt STRICKLAND; Byron Walters; Barry Deese,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    G. Wayne SPEARS; Lynn C. Phillips; Carol Whitaker; H.R.
    Brigman; John Williams; Jerry McQueen; L.W. Moore;
    Sandra Thomas; Yvonne Locklear; Vicky Caulder; John
    Bullock; James Sanderson; John R. Mills, Defendants.
    No. 95-6874.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Feb. 7, 1996.
    Decided Feb. 21, 1996.

    Lloyd Steven Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special
    Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    Lane v. Strickland, No. CA-93-352-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 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.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like