Michael Lynn Brown v. K.L. Osborne, Warden James P. Kelly Richard A. Young

Fourth Circuit

Michael Lynn Brown v. K.L. Osborne, Warden James P. Kelly Richard A. Young

56 F.3d 60, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19072, 1995 WL 318766

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 26, 1995·No. 95-6229·Published

Opinion

56 F.3d 60
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael Lynn BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K.L. OSBORNE, Warden; James P. Kelly; Richard A. Young,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 26, 1995.

Michael Lynn Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

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. Brown v. Osborne, No. CA-95-44 (W.D.Va. Jan. 12, 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

56 F.3d 60
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael Lynn BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K.L. OSBORNE, Warden; James P. Kelly; Richard A. Young,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 26, 1995.

Michael Lynn Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

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. Brown v. Osborne, No. CA-95-44 (W.D.Va. Jan. 12, 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

Michael Lynn Brown v. K.L. Osborne, Warden James P. Kelly Richard A. Young, 56 F.3d 60, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19072, 1995 WL 318766 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

56 F.3d 60 (Michael Lynn Brown v. K.L. Osborne, Warden James P. Kelly Richard A. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.