Crayton E. McElveen Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Director, Department of Corrections Warden Saunders Dr. Carey Dr. Lanyi

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23461
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 22, 1995
Docket95-6179
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Crayton E. McElveen Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Director, Department of Corrections Warden Saunders Dr. Carey Dr. Lanyi) 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
Crayton E. McElveen Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Director, Department of Corrections Warden Saunders Dr. Carey Dr. Lanyi, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23461 (4th Cir. 1995).

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Crayton E. MCELVEEN, Jr., Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia; Director, Department of
Corrections; Warden Saunders; Dr. Carey; Dr.
Lanyi, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6179.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 22, 1995.

Crayton E. McElveen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Colin James Steuart Thomas, Jr., TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton, VA, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. McElveen v. Virginia, No. CA-94-467-R (W.D.Va. Jan 10 & Jan. 24, 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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crayton-e-mcelveen-jr-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-d-ca4-1995.