Daniel Marion Schroyer v. Lynn C. Armentrout Robert Jett Ronald Brinkley Doctor McNeil Edward W. Murray O.T. Bristow Larry Funk R.B. Kessler

Fourth Circuit

Daniel Marion Schroyer v. Lynn C. Armentrout Robert Jett Ronald Brinkley Doctor McNeil Edward W. Murray O.T. Bristow Larry Funk R.B. Kessler

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12198, 1994 WL 5097

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1994

Docket93-6674

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1434 (Daniel Marion Schroyer v. Lynn C. Armentrout Robert Jett Ronald Brinkley Doctor McNeil Edward W. Murray O.T. Bristow Larry Funk R.B. Kessler) 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

Daniel Marion Schroyer v. Lynn C. Armentrout Robert Jett Ronald Brinkley Doctor McNeil Edward W. Murray O.T. Bristow Larry Funk R.B. Kessler, 17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12198, 1994 WL 5097 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Daniel Marion SCHROYER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lynn C. ARMENTROUT; Robert Jett; Ronald Brinkley; Doctor
McNeil; Edward W. Murray; O.T. Bristow; Larry
Funk; R.B. Kessler, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 1993.
Decided Jan. 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-464-R, CA-92-540-R).

Daniel Marion Schroyer, appellant pro se.

J. Ross Newell, III, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C., Staunton, VA; Charles Franklin HIlton, Marshall Howard Ross, Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, Harrisonburg, VA; Karen Lynn Lebo, Office of the Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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 his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses no abuse of discretion and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Schroyer v. Armentrout, No. CA-92-464-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 1993, June 14, 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.

*

Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion for production of documents

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

17 F.3d 1434
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.

Daniel Marion SCHROYER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lynn C. ARMENTROUT; Robert Jett; Ronald Brinkley; Doctor
McNeil; Edward W. Murray; O.T. Bristow; Larry
Funk; R.B. Kessler, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 1993.
Decided Jan. 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-464-R, CA-92-540-R).

Daniel Marion Schroyer, appellant pro se.

J. Ross Newell, III, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C., Staunton, VA; Charles Franklin HIlton, Marshall Howard Ross, Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, Harrisonburg, VA; Karen Lynn Lebo, Office of the Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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 his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses no abuse of discretion and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Schroyer v. Armentrout, No. CA-92-464-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 1993, June 14, 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.

*

Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion for production of documents

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12198, 1994 WL 5097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-marion-schroyer-v-lynn-c-armentrout-robert--ca4-1994.