Fitzgerald v. Bumgardner

920 F.2d 926, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21663, 1990 WL 200675
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 14, 1990
Docket90-1135
StatusUnpublished

This text of 920 F.2d 926 (Fitzgerald v. Bumgardner) 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
Fitzgerald v. Bumgardner, 920 F.2d 926, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21663, 1990 WL 200675 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

920 F.2d 926
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Palmer Russell FITZGERALD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Rudolph BUMGARDNER, III, Charles W. Poland, Commonwealth
Attorney, Matthew P. Dullaghan, Assistant
Commonwealth Attorney, Joseph E. Hess,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 1990.
Decided Dec. 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., District Judge. (CA-89-35-H)

Palmer Russell Fitzgerald, appellant pro se.

Peter Robert Messitt, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., James Greer Welsh, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C., Staunton, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Palmer Russell Fitzgerald appeals from the district court's order which dismissed his motion in which he requested that the court "set aside all jail time" and disclose the names of jurors who served in his state court jury trial. 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. Fitzgerald v. Bumgardner, CA-89-35-H (W.D.Va. Sept. 5, 1990). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
920 F.2d 926, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21663, 1990 WL 200675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-bumgardner-ca4-1990.