Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McLamb v. Morris, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Thomas Lee McLamb v. E. C. Morris et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on McLamb's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7484

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Thomas Lee McLamb v. E. C. Morris et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on McLamb's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views3 pages

    McLamb v. Morris, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Thomas Lee McLamb v. E. C. Morris et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief on McLamb's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the reasoning of the district court and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7484

    THOMAS LEE MCLAMB,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    E. C. MORRIS, Deputy Director; W. P. ROGERS,
    Regional Administrator; C. H. ALLEN, Regional
    Ombudsman; J. M. HOLMES, Regional Ombudsman;
    C. E. THOMPSON, Warden; LEA, Institution Investigator; S. R. WHITTEN, Grievance Coordinator; H. CRENSHAW, Officer; J. SINGLETON,
    Officer; D. WILSON, Officer; W. R. SPEEDE,
    Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-93-933-2)
    Submitted:

    December 12, 1996

    Decided:

    December 19, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Lee McLamb, Appellant Pro Se.
    Martha Murphey Parrish,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief
    on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. McLamb v. Morris, No. CA-93-933-2 (E.D. Va. June 20 & Sept.
    13, 1996). 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