Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities

Fourth Circuit

Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities

74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38851, 1996 WL 24666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1996

Docket95-7575

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1232 (Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities) 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

Marcus A. Joseph v. R.C. Peterson Nancy Bloom Bill Austin, Individually and in Their Official and Professional Capacities, 74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38851, 1996 WL 24666 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marcus A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R.C. PETERSON; Nancy Bloom; Bill Austin, individually and
in their official and professional capacities,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7575.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 24, 1996.

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Peterson, No. CA-95-2457-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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

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

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Marcus A. JOSEPH, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R.C. PETERSON; Nancy Bloom; Bill Austin, individually and
in their official and professional capacities,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-7575.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 24, 1996.

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Peterson, No. CA-95-2457-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38851, 1996 WL 24666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-a-joseph-v-rc-peterson-nancy-bloom-bill-aus-ca4-1996.