Linwood Earl Chandler v. Samuel L. Batts J. Hite, Correctional Officer T.E. Rooks, Sergeant M.D. Hines, Sergeant

Fourth Circuit

Linwood Earl Chandler v. Samuel L. Batts J. Hite, Correctional Officer T.E. Rooks, Sergeant M.D. Hines, Sergeant

57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21803, 1995 WL 365002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1995

Docket95-6080

StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1065 (Linwood Earl Chandler v. Samuel L. Batts J. Hite, Correctional Officer T.E. Rooks, Sergeant M.D. Hines, Sergeant) 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

Linwood Earl Chandler v. Samuel L. Batts J. Hite, Correctional Officer T.E. Rooks, Sergeant M.D. Hines, Sergeant, 57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21803, 1995 WL 365002 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

57 F.3d 1065
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Linwood Earl CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel L. BATTS; J. Hite, Correctional Officer; T.E.
Rooks, Sergeant; M.D. Hines, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 1995.
Decided: June 19, 1995.

Linwood Earl Chandler, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chandler v. Batts, No. CA-94-1224-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 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.*

*

We deny Appellant's "Emergency Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief" in which he requests that we place the case in abeyance and transfer him to another prison. We also deny Appellant's "Motion to Reconvene and for the appointment of counsel."

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

57 F.3d 1065
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.

Linwood Earl CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel L. BATTS; J. Hite, Correctional Officer; T.E.
Rooks, Sergeant; M.D. Hines, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 1995.
Decided: June 19, 1995.

Linwood Earl Chandler, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chandler v. Batts, No. CA-94-1224-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 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.*

*

We deny Appellant's "Emergency Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief" in which he requests that we place the case in abeyance and transfer him to another prison. We also deny Appellant's "Motion to Reconvene and for the appointment of counsel."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21803, 1995 WL 365002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linwood-earl-chandler-v-samuel-l-batts-j-hite-corr-ca4-1995.