Allen Lankford v. Joseph C. Wright

57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21746, 1995 WL 350024
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 1995
Docket94-2309
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1066 (Allen Lankford v. Joseph C. Wright) 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
Allen Lankford v. Joseph C. Wright, 57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21746, 1995 WL 350024 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

57 F.3d 1066
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Allen LANKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joseph C. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-2309.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 12, 1995.

Allen Lankford, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph C. Wright, Appellee.

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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. Appellant's claims relating to witness credibility are not reviewable absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343 (4th Cir.1995). Further, there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in civil proceedings, so any error by counsel cannot serve as a basis for relief on appeal. Sanchez v. United States Postal Service, 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986). Finally, Appellant's contention that Appellee should not have been permitted to personally cross examine him is plainly without merit. 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

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21746, 1995 WL 350024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-lankford-v-joseph-c-wright-ca4-1995.