Littlejohn v. Medlock

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12213, 1994 WL 65201
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 3, 1994
Docket93-6991
StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1434 (Littlejohn v. Medlock) 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
Littlejohn v. Medlock, 17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12213, 1994 WL 65201 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Quintin LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T. Travis MEDLOCK, Attorney General for The State of South
Carolina; Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; S.R. Witkowski, Warden, Perry
Correctional Institution; Charles Brock, Deputy Warden;
Terrell Bird, Captain of Security, P.C.I.; Donald F. Dease,
Regional Administrator, South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6991.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 27, 1994.
Decided March 3, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Sough Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1582-3-3BC)

Quintin Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Littlejohn v. Medlock, No. CA-93-1582-3-3BC (D.S.C., Sept. 1, 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.

AFFIRMED

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12213, 1994 WL 65201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littlejohn-v-medlock-ca4-1994.