Henry M. Buford v. E.P. Perini, Supt. John Morgan H. Haruffy J. Gunter D. Wright

815 F.2d 702, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150, 1987 WL 36901
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 31, 1987
Docket86-3447
StatusUnpublished

This text of 815 F.2d 702 (Henry M. Buford v. E.P. Perini, Supt. John Morgan H. Haruffy J. Gunter D. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henry M. Buford v. E.P. Perini, Supt. John Morgan H. Haruffy J. Gunter D. Wright, 815 F.2d 702, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150, 1987 WL 36901 (6th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

815 F.2d 702

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Henry M. BUFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
E.P. PERINI, Supt.; John Morgan; H. Haruffy; J.
Gunter; D. Wright, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-3447.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

March 31, 1987.

Before KEITH and JONES, Circuit Judges; and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The matter has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the certified record and the parties' briefs, the panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Plaintiff alleged constitutional violations by prison officials on the grounds of negligence and respondeat superior because prison officials failed to prevent his assault. He claimed that the taking of his personal property violated his due process rights. The district court dismissed the action upon finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Upon consideration, this Court concludes and affirms the district court's order of dismissal for reasons stated in the district court's order dated April 17, 1986.

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

Related

Corethers v. State of Ohio
815 F.2d 702 (Sixth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
815 F.2d 702, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150, 1987 WL 36901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-m-buford-v-ep-perini-supt-john-morgan-h-haruffy-j-gunter-d-ca6-1987.