Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby, Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby

Fourth Circuit

Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby, Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby

60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1995

Docket95-6560

StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 824 (Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby, Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby) 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

Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby, Ralph Seagle v. Grant Spicer Herb Myers Scott Hamby, 60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24910 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ralph SEAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Grant SPICER; Herb Myers; Scott Hamby, Defendants-Appellees.
Ralph SEAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Grant SPICER; Herb Myers; Scott Hamby, Defendants--Appellees.

Nos. 95-6560, 95-6561.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995
Decided June 29, 1995

Ralph Seagle, Appellant Pro Se.

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

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. Seagle v. Spicer, No. CA-95-44-4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28 & Apr. 6, 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

60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Ralph SEAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Grant SPICER; Herb Myers; Scott Hamby, Defendants-Appellees.
Ralph SEAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Grant SPICER; Herb Myers; Scott Hamby, Defendants--Appellees.

Nos. 95-6560, 95-6561.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995
Decided June 29, 1995

Ralph Seagle, Appellant Pro Se.

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

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. Seagle v. Spicer, No. CA-95-44-4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28 & Apr. 6, 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)

60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-seagle-v-grant-spicer-herb-myers-scott-hamby-ca4-1995.