David Satchell v. Brenda J. Hill, Maryland Correctional Training Center Food Service Department

854 F.2d 1317, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10892, 1988 WL 83449
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 1988
Docket88-6630
StatusUnpublished

This text of 854 F.2d 1317 (David Satchell v. Brenda J. Hill, Maryland Correctional Training Center Food Service Department) 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
David Satchell v. Brenda J. Hill, Maryland Correctional Training Center Food Service Department, 854 F.2d 1317, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10892, 1988 WL 83449 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

854 F.2d 1317
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David SATCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Brenda J. HILL, Maryland Correctional Training Center Food
Service Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-6630.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 1988.
Decided Aug. 4, 1988.

David Satchell, appellant pro se.

Before ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David Satchell appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 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. Satchell v. Hill, C/A No. 88-702-HM (D.Md. Apr. 6, 1988). We deny appellant's request for appointment of counsel. The issues involved in this appeal are not inordinately complex and are adequately presented in appellant's briefs. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.1984). 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

Related

Thacker (Robert) v. Bumgarner (Michael E.)
854 F.2d 1317 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
Whisenant v. Yuam
739 F.2d 160 (Fourth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
854 F.2d 1317, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10892, 1988 WL 83449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-satchell-v-brenda-j-hill-maryland-correctional-training-center-ca4-1988.