Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mark Lomar Johnson v. Larry W. Huffman, S. Conners, D. Swisher, 928 F.2d 399, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) Mark Lomar Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials Larry W. Huffman, S. Conners, and D. Swisher in the Western District of Virginia which was denied. 2) Johnson appealed the denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. 3) The Fourth Circuit found Johnson's appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the prison officials based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 928 F.2d 399 Docket: 90-7166

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Mark Lomar Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials Larry W. Huffman, S. Conners, and D. Swisher in the Western District of Virginia which was denied. 2) Johnson appealed the denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. 3) The Fourth Circuit found Johnson's appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the prison officials based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    Mark Lomar Johnson v. Larry W. Huffman, S. Conners, D. Swisher, 928 F.2d 399, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Mark Lomar Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials Larry W. Huffman, S. Conners, and D. Swisher in the Western District of Virginia which was denied. 2) Johnson appealed the denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. 3) The Fourth Circuit found Johnson's appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the prison officials based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    928 F.

    2d 399
    Unpublished Disposition

    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.
    Mark Lomar JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Larry W. HUFFMAN, S. Conners, D. Swisher, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 90-7166.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 18, 1991.
    Decided March 19, 1991.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-88-605-R)
    Mark Lamar Johnson, appellant pro se.
    Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,
    Va., for appellees.
    W.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Mark Lomar Johnson appeals from the district court's order denying relief
    under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Johnson v. Huffman, CA-88-605-R


    (W.D.Va. Oct. 29, 1990). 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.

    You might also like