Joyner v. Morris
This text of 37 F.3d 1494 (Joyner v. Morris) 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.
Opinion
37 F.3d 1494
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
George JOYNER, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
E. C. MORRIS; L. W. Huffman; L. M. Saunders; Sargeant
Harden; Sargeant Farley; Sargeant Welcher; Sargeant
Harris; Captain Boyers; Captain L. R. Day; Lieutenant
Lyle; Nurse Nelson; Nurse Mccoy; Nurse Ingram; Nurse
Fleisman; Correctional Officer Peters; Correctional
Officer Pancake; Correctional Officer Bennet; Correctional
Officer Buchanan; Correctional Officer Cross; Correctional
Officer Mccoy; Correctional Officer Harrison; Correctional
Officer Sprouse; Commissary Manager Deckle; Margrethe
Warden, Regional Ombudsman; Counselor B. Brereton;
Counselor Mueller; S. Taylor, Defendants Appellees.
No. 93-6705.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 1993.
Decided Oct. 19, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-656-R)
George Joyner, appellant Pro Se.
Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for appellee.
W.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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. Joyner v. Morris, No. CA-92-656-R (W.D.Va. June 18, 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34866, 1994 WL 577750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-morris-ca4-1994.