Wilkins v. Rollins

59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23211, 1995 WL 375911
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1995
Docket95-6299
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 168 (Wilkins v. Rollins) 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
Wilkins v. Rollins, 59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23211, 1995 WL 375911 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 168
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Earl WILKINS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden; J.C. Sanders, Chief of Security;
Lieutenant Victor; Lieutenant Donnell; Lieutenant Rogers;
Sergeant Crest; Darnette J. Boyd, Sergeant; Sergeant
Locklear; Sergeant Taley; Sergeant Cargo; D.K. Jackson,
Sergeant; D. Pinkett, Correctional Officer I; R. Leonard,
Correctional Officer Ii; Lynette P. Harlee, Defendants--Appellees,
and
John Parker, Hearing Officer, Defendant.

No. 95-6299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

Earl Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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. Wilkins v. Rollins, No. CA-93-1248 (D. Md. January 27, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23211, 1995 WL 375911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkins-v-rollins-ca4-1995.