Garnell Steven Hill v. Joseph P. Sacchet, Warden Richard Lanham, Sr., Commissioner

980 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 348940
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 30, 1992
Docket92-6923
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 980 F.2d 727 (Garnell Steven Hill v. Joseph P. Sacchet, Warden Richard Lanham, Sr., Commissioner) 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
Garnell Steven Hill v. Joseph P. Sacchet, Warden Richard Lanham, Sr., Commissioner, 980 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 348940 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

980 F.2d 727
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Garnell Steven HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden; Richard Lanham, Sr.,
Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6923.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 30, 1992
Decided: November 30, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-92-197-B)

Garnell Steven Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Timothy James Paulus, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

Affirmed.

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Garnell Steven Hill appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Hill v. Sacchet, No. CA-92-197-B (D. Md. Aug. 24, 1992). 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

Hithon v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
151 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (N.D. Alabama, 2015)
Qureshi v. Alexandria Hospital
510 U.S. 832 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Charles A. Brower v. Doctor Smith
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
Qureshi v. Alexandria Hosp.
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
Carey v. Blankenship
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
Campbell v. Davis
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
Johnnie Lloyd v. United States
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
In Re: Lamar Perryman
980 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
980 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 348940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garnell-steven-hill-v-joseph-p-sacchet-warden-richard-lanham-sr-ca4-1992.