Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. John H. Connell T. Woods Francis E. Dail James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina David W. Daniel

16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319, 1994 WL 32643
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 7, 1994
Docket93-6946
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 411 (Cornelius Tucker, Jr. v. John H. Connell T. Woods Francis E. Dail James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina David W. Daniel) 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. John H. Connell T. Woods Francis E. Dail James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina David W. Daniel, 16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319, 1994 WL 32643 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 411
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
John H. CONNELL; T. Woods; Francis E. Dail; James B.
Hunt, Jr., Governor of North Carolina; David W.
Daniel, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-6946.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided Feb. 7, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., appellant Pro Se.

Sylvia Hargett Thibaut, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Peeler Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Tucker v. Connell, No. CA-93-467-CRT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1993). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319, 1994 WL 32643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-tucker-jr-v-john-h-connell-t-woods-franc-ca4-1994.