Darold Donnell Taylor v. P.L. Huffman Bland Correctional Center Dr. Walker

16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7307, 1994 WL 11938
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 1994
Docket93-7164
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 411 (Darold Donnell Taylor v. P.L. Huffman Bland Correctional Center Dr. Walker) 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
Darold Donnell Taylor v. P.L. Huffman Bland Correctional Center Dr. Walker, 16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7307, 1994 WL 11938 (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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Darold Donnell TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P.L. HUFFMAN; Bland Correctional Center; Dr. Walker,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-7164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 1993.
Decided Jan. 20, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-881-R).

Darold Donnell Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Karen Lynn Lebo, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Frances Merrimon Burwell, Wooten & Hart, P.C., Roanoke, 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 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. Taylor v. Huffman, No. CA-92-881-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 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 7307, 1994 WL 11938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darold-donnell-taylor-v-pl-huffman-bland-correctio-ca4-1994.