Michael McLean v. Talmadge Barnett Michael J. Lamm Ann Smith J.P. Morgan Charles Walston Renoice Stancil

Fourth Circuit

Michael McLean v. Talmadge Barnett Michael J. Lamm Ann Smith J.P. Morgan Charles Walston Renoice Stancil

57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21747, 1995 WL 347229

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1995

Docket95-6036

StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1066 (Michael McLean v. Talmadge Barnett Michael J. Lamm Ann Smith J.P. Morgan Charles Walston Renoice Stancil) 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 McLean v. Talmadge Barnett Michael J. Lamm Ann Smith J.P. Morgan Charles Walston Renoice Stancil, 57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21747, 1995 WL 347229 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

57 F.3d 1066
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 MCLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Talmadge BARNETT; Michael J. Lamm; Ann Smith; J.P.
Morgan; Charles Walston; Renoice Stancil,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6036.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 1995.
Decided: June 9, 1995.

Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

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. McLean v. Barnett, No. CA-93-772 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 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.*

AFFIRMED

*

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

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

57 F.3d 1066
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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 MCLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Talmadge BARNETT; Michael J. Lamm; Ann Smith; J.P.
Morgan; Charles Walston; Renoice Stancil,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6036.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 1995.
Decided: June 9, 1995.

Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

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. McLean v. Barnett, No. CA-93-772 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 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.*

AFFIRMED

*

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21747, 1995 WL 347229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-mclean-v-talmadge-barnett-michael-j-lamm-a-ca4-1995.