Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Leo L. Maddox v. David Odom, Hearing Officer Maria Blandshaw, I.A.C. Staff Coordinator, in Their Official and Individual Capacities, 73 F.3d 358, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    Leo Maddox filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against a hearing officer and staff coordinator related to a prison disciplinary hearing. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 73 F.3d 358 Docket: 95-7019

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Leo Maddox filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against a hearing officer and staff coordinator related to a prison disciplinary hearing. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views1 page

    Leo L. Maddox v. David Odom, Hearing Officer Maria Blandshaw, I.A.C. Staff Coordinator, in Their Official and Individual Capacities, 73 F.3d 358, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Leo Maddox filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against a hearing officer and staff coordinator related to a prison disciplinary hearing. The district court denied relief and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    73 F.

    3d 358
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished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.

    Leo L. MADDOX, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    David ODOM, Hearing Officer; Maria Blandshaw, I.A.C. Staff
    Coordinator, in their official and individual
    capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-7019.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Dec. 14, 1995.
    Decided: Jan. 4, 1996.

    Leo L. Maddox, Appellant Pro Se.


    Leslie Arlen Cotter, Jr., Benjamin Davis McCoy, Richardson, Plowden,
    Grier & Howser, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 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.
    Maddox v. Odom, No. CA-94-1835-3-18BC (D.S.C. June 13, 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