Waddell v. Keen

48 F.3d 1218, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10972, 1995 WL 106112
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 1995
Docket94-7196
StatusPublished

This text of 48 F.3d 1218 (Waddell v. Keen) 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
Waddell v. Keen, 48 F.3d 1218, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10972, 1995 WL 106112 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

48 F.3d 1218
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Timothy WADDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. KEEN, Correctional Officer, KMCC; Janet Salyers, Inmate
Hearings Officer, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; Robert
J. Beck, Warden; Richard A. Young, Regional Administrator,
Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-7196.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 16, 1995.

Timothy Waddell, appellant pro se.

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

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment 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. Waddell v. Keen, No. CA-93-944-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 22, 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

*

Appellant's notice of appeal was not timely as to the underlying order. Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider that order. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 F.3d 1218, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10972, 1995 WL 106112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waddell-v-keen-ca4-1995.