Michael L. Jordan v. Lonnie M. Saunders Ron Angelone

82 F.3d 410, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21073, 1996 WL 176251
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 16, 1996
Docket95-8528
StatusUnpublished

This text of 82 F.3d 410 (Michael L. Jordan v. Lonnie M. Saunders Ron Angelone) 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
Michael L. Jordan v. Lonnie M. Saunders Ron Angelone, 82 F.3d 410, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21073, 1996 WL 176251 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

82 F.3d 410

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael L. JORDAN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Lonnie M. SAUNDERS; Ron Angelone, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-8528.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 16, 1996.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1215)

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Jordan v. Saunders, No. CA-95-1215 (W.D.Va. Nov. 17 & 30, 1995). See generally Hanvey v. Blankenship, 631 F.2d 296, 297 (4th Cir.1980) (prison officials do not violate inmate's Constitutional rights when they seize contraband). 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 F.3d 410, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21073, 1996 WL 176251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-l-jordan-v-lonnie-m-saunders-ron-angelone-ca4-1996.