Gooden v. Dawson

45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40375, 1994 WL 717706
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 1994
Docket94-6768
StatusPublished

This text of 45 F.3d 426 (Gooden v. Dawson) 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
Gooden v. Dawson, 45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40375, 1994 WL 717706 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

45 F.3d 426
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Arthur Lee GOODEN, II, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
DAWSON, Correctional Officer; Lonnie M. Saunders; John
Doe; Laprade, Correctional Officer; F. S. Taylor,
Assistant Warden/ Programs; Rob Bird, Treatment Programs
Supervisor; Viki Kennedy, Receiving Correctional Officer;
Mr. Strange, Orientation Counselor; Cheryl Miller, Business
Manager; Jack Lee, Assistant Warden, Operations; Captain
Day, Acting Chief of Security; Mr. Dinkle, Commisary
Manager, Defendants Appellees,
and
Virginia Department Of Corrections, Defendant.

No. 94-6768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 13, 1994.
Decided: Dec. 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-526-R)

Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gooden v. Dawson, No. CA-93-526-R (W.D.Va. June 10, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40375, 1994 WL 717706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooden-v-dawson-ca4-1994.