Darryl D. Finney v. Naomi Long, Magistrate Mary v. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate

Fourth Circuit

Darryl D. Finney v. Naomi Long, Magistrate Mary v. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate

56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19085, 1995 WL 321339

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 30, 1995·No. 95-6327·Published

Opinion

56 F.3d 61
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Darryl D. FINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Naomi LONG, Magistrate; Mary V. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6327.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 30, 1995.

Darryl D. Finney, appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

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, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Finney v. Long, No. CA-95-192-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 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

56 F.3d 61
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Darryl D. FINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Naomi LONG, Magistrate; Mary V. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6327.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 30, 1995.

Darryl D. Finney, appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

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, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Finney v. Long, No. CA-95-192-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 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

Darryl D. Finney v. Naomi Long, Magistrate Mary v. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate, 56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19085, 1995 WL 321339 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

56 F.3d 61 (Darryl D. Finney v. Naomi Long, Magistrate Mary v. Mehegan, Chief Magistrate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.