Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robert Turner v. Officer Meacom, Correctional Officer Sergeant Coles, 966 F.2d 1444, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Robert Turner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials that was denied by the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling without oral argument. The appeals court found the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in the initial denial of Turner's claim. The facts and legal arguments were adequately represented in the materials submitted, so oral arguments would not aid the decision. The denial of Turner's claim was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-06-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 966 F.2d 1444 Docket: 91-7751

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Turner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials that was denied by the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling without oral argument. The appeals court found the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in the initial denial of Turner's claim. The facts and legal arguments were adequately represented in the materials submitted, so oral arguments would not aid the decision. The denial of Turner's claim was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Robert Turner v. Officer Meacom, Correctional Officer Sergeant Coles, 966 F.2d 1444, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Turner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against prison officials that was denied by the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling without oral argument. The appeals court found the appeal was without merit based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in the initial denial of Turner's claim. The facts and legal arguments were adequately represented in the materials submitted, so oral arguments would not aid the decision. The denial of Turner's claim was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    966 F.

    2d 1444

    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.
    Robert TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Officer MEACOM, Correctional Officer; Sergeant Coles,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 91-7751.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 21, 1992
    Decided: June 2, 1992

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-351)
    Robert Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Gayl Branum Carr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before RUSSELL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Robert Turner appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief under

    42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988).* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's
    opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Turner v. Meacom, No. CA-91-351
    (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 1991). 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 magistrate judge's jurisdiction pursuant to 28


    U.S.C. 636(c)(2) (1988)

    You might also like