Hall v. Guillory

48 F.3d 1216, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11019, 1995 WL 88917
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1995
Docket94-6919
StatusPublished

This text of 48 F.3d 1216 (Hall v. Guillory) 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
Hall v. Guillory, 48 F.3d 1216, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11019, 1995 WL 88917 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

48 F.3d 1216
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Carl Edward HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D.R. GUILLORY, Warden; L.T. Lester, Assistant Warden; C.N.
Lewis, Major; L. Corner, Operations Officer; J. Edmonds,
Hearing Officer; B. Caraballo, Counselor; C.E. Dunmoodie,
Captain; E. Barksdale, Captain; J.R. Towsend, Captain;
R.A. Thomas, Lieutenant; D.A. Williams, Ex Warden; Larry
Jarvis; L. Kelly; Janice Ingram; Patrick J. Gurney;
Terry Glenn; K. Barden; P. Curtes; D.H. Anderson;
Lieutenant Rowlette; W.P. Rogers; Edward C. Morris; R.
Beaver, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-6919.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided March 6, 1995.

Carl Edward Hall, Appellant pro se.

Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. Guillory, No. CA-93-783-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 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)
48 F.3d 1216, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11019, 1995 WL 88917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-guillory-ca4-1995.