Rocky Edward Grigsby v. Lonnie Saunders, Warden L. Jarvis, Assistant Warden-Programs Institutional Classification Committee

947 F.2d 940, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30449, 1991 WL 232078
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 12, 1991
Docket91-7682
StatusUnpublished

This text of 947 F.2d 940 (Rocky Edward Grigsby v. Lonnie Saunders, Warden L. Jarvis, Assistant Warden-Programs Institutional Classification Committee) 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
Rocky Edward Grigsby v. Lonnie Saunders, Warden L. Jarvis, Assistant Warden-Programs Institutional Classification Committee, 947 F.2d 940, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30449, 1991 WL 232078 (4th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

947 F.2d 940

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Rocky Edward GRIGSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lonnie SAUNDERS, Warden; L. Jarvis, Assistant
Warden-Programs; Institutional Classification
Committee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7682.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 28, 1991.
Decided Nov. 12, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-204-R)

Rocky Edward Grigsby, appellant pro se.

Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, SPROUSE, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rocky Edward Grigsby appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Grigsby v. Saunders, No. CA-91-204-R (W.D.Va. Aug. 27, 1991). 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)
947 F.2d 940, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30449, 1991 WL 232078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocky-edward-grigsby-v-lonnie-saunders-warden-l-jarvis-assistant-ca4-1991.