Edmond v. Evatt

21 F.3d 422, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15902, 1994 WL 118375
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 6, 1994
Docket94-6082
StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.3d 422 (Edmond v. Evatt) 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
Edmond v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 422, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15902, 1994 WL 118375 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

21 F.3d 422
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jesse EDMOND, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT; John Trussel; S.R. Witkowski; Stephen A.
Kamp; George Dodkins; Roena Williams; James Sewell; Emma
Ellis; Hilda Stevens; Angela Lake; Correctional Officer
Myer; Steve Dirton; Correctional Officer Valasquez;
Correctional Officer Proctor, each in his or her individual
and official capacity, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6082.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1994.
Decided April 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-185)

Jesse Edmond, appellant pro se.

William Benson Darwin, Jr., Holcombe, Bomar, Cothran & Gunn, P.A., Spartanburg, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Edmond v. Evatt, No. CA-93-185 (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 1994). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F.3d 422, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15902, 1994 WL 118375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmond-v-evatt-ca4-1994.