Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Dr. Davenport Superintendent Shields Lynn Phillips

Fourth Circuit

Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Dr. Davenport Superintendent Shields Lynn Phillips

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23481, 1995 WL 376169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1995

Docket95-6361

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Dr. Davenport Superintendent Shields Lynn Phillips) 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

Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. Dr. Davenport Superintendent Shields Lynn Phillips, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23481, 1995 WL 376169 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DR. DAVENPORT; Superintendent Shields; Lynn Phillips,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6361.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v. Davenport, No. CA-93-456-CRT-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 1995). 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

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DR. DAVENPORT; Superintendent Shields; Lynn Phillips,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6361.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v. Davenport, No. CA-93-456-CRT-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 1995). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23481, 1995 WL 376169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-tucker-jr-v-dr-davenport-superintendent--ca4-1995.