Kenneth Martin Walls v. Hamilton Beach/proctor-Silex, Incorporated Marvin Hill Author Fish Lynn Phillips T.E. Ross, Doctor Kathrine Dail Joe Beach

Fourth Circuit

Kenneth Martin Walls v. Hamilton Beach/proctor-Silex, Incorporated Marvin Hill Author Fish Lynn Phillips T.E. Ross, Doctor Kathrine Dail Joe Beach

74 F.3d 1235, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38806, 1996 WL 15424

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 1996

Docket95-7365

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1235 (Kenneth Martin Walls v. Hamilton Beach/proctor-Silex, Incorporated Marvin Hill Author Fish Lynn Phillips T.E. Ross, Doctor Kathrine Dail Joe Beach) 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

Kenneth Martin Walls v. Hamilton Beach/proctor-Silex, Incorporated Marvin Hill Author Fish Lynn Phillips T.E. Ross, Doctor Kathrine Dail Joe Beach, 74 F.3d 1235, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38806, 1996 WL 15424 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

74 F.3d 1235
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Kenneth Martin WALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR-SILEX, Incorporated; Marvin Hill;
Author Fish; Lynn Phillips; T.E. Ross, Doctor;
Kathrine Dail; Joe Beach, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 17, 1996.

Kenneth Martin Walls, Appellant Pro Se. Randall David Avram, Douglas G. Brehm, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jane Ray Garvey, Michael F. Easley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.* Walls v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc., No. CA94-336-CV-3 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1988)

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

74 F.3d 1235
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(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 Fourth Circuit.

Kenneth Martin WALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR-SILEX, Incorporated; Marvin Hill;
Author Fish; Lynn Phillips; T.E. Ross, Doctor;
Kathrine Dail; Joe Beach, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 17, 1996.

Kenneth Martin Walls, Appellant Pro Se. Randall David Avram, Douglas G. Brehm, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jane Ray Garvey, Michael F. Easley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.* Walls v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc., No. CA94-336-CV-3 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F.3d 1235, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38806, 1996 WL 15424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-martin-walls-v-hamilton-beachproctor-silex-ca4-1996.