Leroy Eaddy-Bey v. Robert Brown, Jr. Melody Wallace David Haskell, Warden Julie Thom D. Strong S. Robinson

979 F.2d 850, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35873, 1992 WL 337625
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1992
Docket92-1362
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 979 F.2d 850 (Leroy Eaddy-Bey v. Robert Brown, Jr. Melody Wallace David Haskell, Warden Julie Thom D. Strong S. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leroy Eaddy-Bey v. Robert Brown, Jr. Melody Wallace David Haskell, Warden Julie Thom D. Strong S. Robinson, 979 F.2d 850, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35873, 1992 WL 337625 (6th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

979 F.2d 850

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Leroy EADDY-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert BROWN, Jr.; Melody Wallace; David Haskell, Warden;
Julie Thom; D. Strong; S. Robinson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-1362.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1992.

Before BOGGS and SILER, Circuit Judges, and LAMBROS, Chief District Judge.*

ORDER

Leroy Eaddy-Bey appeals the district court's order and judgment granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights case. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Eaddy-Bey claimed that certain defendants authorized legal mail from the state attorney general to be opened outside of his presence, and that he was denied transfer to a prison with a law library which effectively denied him access to the courts. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the claims were meritless. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

Eaddy-Bey raises the same arguments on appeal. In addition, he argues that the district court erred by denying him the opportunity to engage in discovery before granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Upon review, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation dated January 15, 1992, and in the Order and Judgment Approving Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 24, 1992. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Thomas D. Lambros, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

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

Related

Hall v. Conklin
966 F. Supp. 546 (W.D. Michigan, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
979 F.2d 850, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35873, 1992 WL 337625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-eaddy-bey-v-robert-brown-jr-melody-wallace-d-ca6-1992.