Johnney Joseph Hartney v. Armed Forces Radio Rush Limbaugh Radio & Television Joseph Cook, Colonel

23 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18502, 1994 WL 191672
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 1994
Docket94-1226
StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 401 (Johnney Joseph Hartney v. Armed Forces Radio Rush Limbaugh Radio & Television Joseph Cook, Colonel) 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
Johnney Joseph Hartney v. Armed Forces Radio Rush Limbaugh Radio & Television Joseph Cook, Colonel, 23 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18502, 1994 WL 191672 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

23 F.3d 401
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Johnney Joseph HARTNEY, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ARMED FORCES RADIO; Rush Limbaugh Radio & Television;
Joseph Cook, Colonel, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1226.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-1651-A)

Johnney Joseph Hartney, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Johnney Joseph Hartney appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (1988). 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. Hartney v. Armed Forces Radio, No. CA-93-1651-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 30, 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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18502, 1994 WL 191672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnney-joseph-hartney-v-armed-forces-radio-rush-l-ca4-1994.