Peter Emmanuel Bernard v. B. Soles David K. Smith Marsha Altizer, Chief Psychologist

46 F.3d 1122, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6658, 1995 WL 10222
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 12, 1995
Docket94-6741
StatusUnpublished

This text of 46 F.3d 1122 (Peter Emmanuel Bernard v. B. Soles David K. Smith Marsha Altizer, Chief Psychologist) 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
Peter Emmanuel Bernard v. B. Soles David K. Smith Marsha Altizer, Chief Psychologist, 46 F.3d 1122, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6658, 1995 WL 10222 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

46 F.3d 1122

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Peter Emmanuel BERNARD, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
B. SOLES; David K. Smith; Marsha Altizer, Chief
Psychologist, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6741.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 1994.
Decided Jan. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-355-R)

Peter Emmanuel Bernard, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bernard v. Soles, No. CA-93-355-R (W.D.Va. June 3, 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

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 F.3d 1122, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6658, 1995 WL 10222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-emmanuel-bernard-v-b-soles-david-k-smith-mar-ca4-1995.