Frank Lee Garrett v. James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General Daniel T. Mahon

103 F.3d 117, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36378, 1996 WL 667765
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 19, 1996
Docket96-6901
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 F.3d 117 (Frank Lee Garrett v. James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General Daniel T. Mahon) 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
Frank Lee Garrett v. James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General Daniel T. Mahon, 103 F.3d 117, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36378, 1996 WL 667765 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

103 F.3d 117

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank Lee GARRETT, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
James S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General; Daniel T. Mahon,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-6901.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 1996.
Decided Nov. 19, 1996.

Frank Lee Garrett, Appellant Pro Se.

Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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. Garrett v. Gilmore, No. CA-95-1230-R (W.D.Va. May 1, 1996). 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

PBM Products, Inc. v. Mead Johnson & Co.
174 F. Supp. 2d 417 (E.D. Virginia, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 F.3d 117, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36378, 1996 WL 667765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-lee-garrett-v-james-s-gilmore-iii-attorney-general-daniel-t-ca4-1996.