Ronald L. Cunningham v. Department of Corrections C. Burnett, Correctional Officer II

979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35182, 1992 WL 337095
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 19, 1992
Docket92-6680
StatusUnpublished

This text of 979 F.2d 847 (Ronald L. Cunningham v. Department of Corrections C. Burnett, Correctional Officer II) 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
Ronald L. Cunningham v. Department of Corrections C. Burnett, Correctional Officer II, 979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35182, 1992 WL 337095 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

979 F.2d 847

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ronald L. Cunningham, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C. Burnett, Correctional Officer
II, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6680.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 1992
Decided: November 19, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Ronald L. Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald L. Cunningham 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. Cunningham v. Department of Corrections, No. CA-92-144 (D. Md. June 1, 1992). We deny Cunningham's motion for appointment of counsel. 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

Gardner (John Sterling, Jr.) v. Dixon (Gary)
979 F.2d 847 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35182, 1992 WL 337095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-l-cunningham-v-department-of-corrections-c--ca4-1992.