Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from May 18, 1995. It affirms the ruling of a magistrate judge who denied relief to the plaintiff, O'Orell Sharrieff, on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision to deny relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-05-18 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 54 F.3d 774 Docket: 94-7406

    Original Title

    O'Orell Sharrieff v. E.B. Wright J v. Beale D.R. Lawson Spencer Cain Posey Scott R.L. Copeland J.A. Smith Renee Johnson Patricia H. Moore M.J. Wilkerson Reager H. Underwood Doctor Marshall Doctor Ramsey Doctor Ong Doctor Mason Rambert Wilmouth S. Sykes Blondel Jules Thornton Doctor Isaacson Edward W. Murray R.B. Kessler, and E.B. Harden, Doctor Lewis Reagen, Doctor Doctor Mucci John Does 1-6 E.B. Aarden, Doctor, 54 F.3d 774, 4th Cir. (1995)

    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 May 18, 1995. It affirms the ruling of a magistrate judge who denied relief to the plaintiff, O'Orell Sharrieff, on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision to deny relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 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 May 18, 1995. It affirms the ruling of a magistrate judge who denied relief to the plaintiff, O'Orell Sharrieff, on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various defendants. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision to deny relief.

    Copyright:

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

    54 F.

    3d 774
    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.

    O'Orell SHARRIEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    E.B. WRIGHT; J.V. Beale; D.R. Lawson; Spencer; Cain;
    Posey; Scott; R.L. Copeland; J.A. Smith; Renee Johnson;
    Patricia H. Moore; M.J. Wilkerson; Reager; H. Underwood;
    Doctor Marshall; Doctor Ramsey; Doctor Ong; Doctor Mason;
    Rambert; Wilmouth; S. Sykes; Blondel; Jules Thornton;
    Doctor Isaacson; Edward W. Murray; R.B. Kessler,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    E.B. HARDEN, Doctor; Lewis Reagen, Doctor; Doctor Mucci;
    John Does 1-6; E.B. Aarden, Doctor, Defendants.
    No. 94-7406.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 20, 1995.
    Decided May 18, 1995.

    O'Orell Sharrieff, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant


    Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN
    & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA; Sandra Morris Holleran,
    MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, VA, for
    Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the

    magistrate judge's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm


    on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Sharrieff v. Wright, No. CA-93-166
    (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 1994). 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

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28


    U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1988)

    You might also like