Albert Kirkendall v. Lloyd L. Waters, Warden Charles Potts, Medical Director Unknown Correctional Officer(s)

59 F.3d 166, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23412, 1995 WL 370687
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1995
Docket95-6049
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 166 (Albert Kirkendall v. Lloyd L. Waters, Warden Charles Potts, Medical Director Unknown Correctional Officer(s)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Kirkendall v. Lloyd L. Waters, Warden Charles Potts, Medical Director Unknown Correctional Officer(s), 59 F.3d 166, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23412, 1995 WL 370687 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 166
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Albert KIRKENDALL, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Lloyd L. WATERS, Warden; Charles Potts, Medical Director;
Unknown Correctional Officer(s), Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6049.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 20, 1995.

Albert Kirkendall, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court the dismissal as to the named Defendants. Kirkendall v. Waters, No. CA-94-3396 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1994). We dismiss the appeal as to the unnamed correctional officer under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir.1993) because the dismissal without prejudice of this Defendant is not an appealable order. 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 166, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23412, 1995 WL 370687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-kirkendall-v-lloyd-l-waters-warden-charles--ca4-1995.