Larry Webb v. James White, Jr., Superintendent

Fourth Circuit

Larry Webb v. James White, Jr., Superintendent

57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21788, 1995 WL 361061

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1995

Docket94-7237

StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1067 (Larry Webb v. James White, Jr., Superintendent) 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

Larry Webb v. James White, Jr., Superintendent, 57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21788, 1995 WL 361061 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

57 F.3d 1067
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Larry WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James WHITE, Jr., Superintendent, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-7237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 16, 1995.

Larry Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

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. Webb v. White, No. CA-94-392 (E.D. Va. Sep. 30, 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.

AFFIRMED

*

The parties consented to trial by magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(2) (1988)

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

57 F.3d 1067
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Larry WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James WHITE, Jr., Superintendent, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-7237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 16, 1995.

Larry Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

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. Webb v. White, No. CA-94-392 (E.D. Va. Sep. 30, 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.

AFFIRMED

*

The parties consented to trial by magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(2) (1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21788, 1995 WL 361061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-webb-v-james-white-jr-superintendent-ca4-1995.