Clifton E. Campbell v. Jack Terrance Roach, Esquire William L. Thomas, Vice President for Student Affairs James M. Osteen, Director

905 F.2d 1528, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7917, 1990 WL 74276
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 1990
Docket89-2193
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 905 F.2d 1528 (Clifton E. Campbell v. Jack Terrance Roach, Esquire William L. Thomas, Vice President for Student Affairs James M. Osteen, Director) 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
Clifton E. Campbell v. Jack Terrance Roach, Esquire William L. Thomas, Vice President for Student Affairs James M. Osteen, Director, 905 F.2d 1528, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7917, 1990 WL 74276 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

905 F.2d 1528

134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Clifton E. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jack Terrance ROACH, Esquire; William L. Thomas, Vice
President for Student Affairs; James M. Osteen,
Director, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-2193.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 1990.
Decided May 16, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (C/A No. 88-3236-JFM)

Clifton E. Campbell, appellant pro se.

Richard Allan Weitzner, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clifton E. Campbell appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his complaint brought under the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. Secs. 2021 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Campbell v. Roach, CA-88-3236-JFM (D.Md. Sept. 25, 1989). 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.

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

Related

Portman v. N.L.R.B.
885 F.2d 878 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
905 F.2d 1528, 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7917, 1990 WL 74276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifton-e-campbell-v-jack-terrance-roach-esquire-w-ca4-1990.