Jeffrey M. Thurman v. Bishop L. Robinson Richard Lanham Sewall Smith Eugene Nuth Carol Jackson David Dixion

Fourth Circuit

Jeffrey M. Thurman v. Bishop L. Robinson Richard Lanham Sewall Smith Eugene Nuth Carol Jackson David Dixion

50 F.3d 8, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11436, 1995 WL 118147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1995

Docket94-7455

StatusUnpublished

This text of 50 F.3d 8 (Jeffrey M. Thurman v. Bishop L. Robinson Richard Lanham Sewall Smith Eugene Nuth Carol Jackson David Dixion) 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

Jeffrey M. Thurman v. Bishop L. Robinson Richard Lanham Sewall Smith Eugene Nuth Carol Jackson David Dixion, 50 F.3d 8, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11436, 1995 WL 118147 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

50 F.3d 8

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jeffrey M. THURMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BISHOP L. ROBINSON; Richard Lanham; Sewall Smith; Eugene
Nuth; Carol Jackson; David Dixion, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7455.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided: March 21, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-94-3076)

Jeffrey M. Thurman, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

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. Thurman v. Robinson, No. CA-94-3076 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 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

50 F.3d 8

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.
Jeffrey M. THURMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BISHOP L. ROBINSON; Richard Lanham; Sewall Smith; Eugene
Nuth; Carol Jackson; David Dixion, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7455.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided: March 21, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-94-3076)

Jeffrey M. Thurman, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

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. Thurman v. Robinson, No. CA-94-3076 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 F.3d 8, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11436, 1995 WL 118147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-m-thurman-v-bishop-l-robinson-richard-lanh-ca4-1995.