Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Clyde Odom Jacobs, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray Clarence L. Jackson, JR., 981 F.2d 1250, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Clyde Odom Jacobs Jr. filed a § 1983 claim against Edward W. Murray and Clarence L. Jackson Jr. which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion, which found that Jacobs failed to establish a valid § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 981 F.2d 1250 Docket: 92-7055

    Original Title

    Clyde Odom Jacobs, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., 981 F.2d 1250, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clyde Odom Jacobs Jr. filed a § 1983 claim against Edward W. Murray and Clarence L. Jackson Jr. which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion, which found that Jacobs failed to establish a valid § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Clyde Odom Jacobs, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray Clarence L. Jackson, JR., 981 F.2d 1250, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clyde Odom Jacobs Jr. filed a § 1983 claim against Edward W. Murray and Clarence L. Jackson Jr. which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion, which found that Jacobs failed to establish a valid § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    981 F.

    2d 1250

    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.
    Clyde Odom JACOBS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Edward W. MURRAY; Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 92-7055.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 1992
    Decided: December 29, 1992

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-92-796-2)
    Clyde Odom Jacobs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Clyde Odom Jacobs, Jr., appeals from the district court's order denying relief
    under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988). 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. Jacobs v. Murray, No. CA-92-796-2 (E.D.
    Va. Oct. 9, 1992). 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