Ross v. Shaw

25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20820, 1994 WL 210007
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 1994
Docket93-7276
StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1040 (Ross v. Shaw) 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
Ross v. Shaw, 25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20820, 1994 WL 210007 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1040
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ira ROSS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Joel SHAW, Officer, Defendant Appellee.
and
MR. LIGHTFOOT, Secretary of Public Safety & Corrections, A.
Hopkins, Commissioner of Corrections, Norma B. Gluckstern,
Director, Ralph Packard, Superintendent, Hank Musk, Ph.D.,
Director of Health & Mental Services, Wendell McConnell,
Medical Director, PHP Corporation, Medical Contractor to the
Medical Director, PHP Corporation, Medical Contractor to the
Public Safety & Corrections Department, Patuxent
Institution, Defendants.

No. 93-7276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 1994.
Decided May 26, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-87-348-K)

Ira Ross, appellant pro se.

Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Areta L. Kupchyk, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order after a jury verdict on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record shows that substantial evidence supported the verdict and that there was no irregularity in the jury's deliberations. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F.3d 1040, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20820, 1994 WL 210007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-shaw-ca4-1994.