John A. Haynes v. John P. Hartman John Doe Merchant Laurine Carmichael Shirley Doe

Fourth Circuit

John A. Haynes v. John P. Hartman John Doe Merchant Laurine Carmichael Shirley Doe

17 F.3d 1433, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12188, 1994 WL 65206

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1994

Docket93-7019

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1433 (John A. Haynes v. John P. Hartman John Doe Merchant Laurine Carmichael Shirley Doe) 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

John A. Haynes v. John P. Hartman John Doe Merchant Laurine Carmichael Shirley Doe, 17 F.3d 1433, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12188, 1994 WL 65206 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

17 F.3d 1433
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John A. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John P. HARTMAN; John Doe Merchant; Laurine Carmichael;
Shirley Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-7019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 1993.
Decided March 3, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-2214-2-6BC)

John A. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se.

James Albert Stuckey, Jr., Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, SC, for Appellees.

S.D.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Haynes v. Hartman, No. CA-92-2214-2-6BC (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 1993). 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

*

Because of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, we find that disposal of this case without express consideration of Appellant's claim of deprivation of telephone access constituted harmless error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61

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

17 F.3d 1433
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.

John A. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John P. HARTMAN; John Doe Merchant; Laurine Carmichael;
Shirley Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-7019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 1993.
Decided March 3, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-2214-2-6BC)

John A. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se.

James Albert Stuckey, Jr., Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, SC, for Appellees.

S.D.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Haynes v. Hartman, No. CA-92-2214-2-6BC (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 1993). 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

*

Because of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, we find that disposal of this case without express consideration of Appellant's claim of deprivation of telephone access constituted harmless error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.3d 1433, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12188, 1994 WL 65206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-a-haynes-v-john-p-hartman-john-doe-merchant-l-ca4-1994.