William Bryant v. William Smith, Warden James Murphy, Chief of Security

Fourth Circuit

William Bryant v. William Smith, Warden James Murphy, Chief of Security

57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21799, 1995 WL 347237

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1995

Docket95-6105

StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1065 (William Bryant v. William Smith, Warden James Murphy, Chief of Security) 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

William Bryant v. William Smith, Warden James Murphy, Chief of Security, 57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21799, 1995 WL 347237 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

57 F.3d 1065
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

William BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William SMITH, Warden; James Murphy, Chief of Security,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 1995.
Decided: June 9, 1995.

William Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J.S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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 as to Appellee Smith, and granting only nominal damages as to Appellee Murphy. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bryant v. Smith, No. CA-92-2159 (D. Md. Dec. 16, 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

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

57 F.3d 1065
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

William BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William SMITH, Warden; James Murphy, Chief of Security,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 1995.
Decided: June 9, 1995.

William Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J.S. Carrion, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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 as to Appellee Smith, and granting only nominal damages as to Appellee Murphy. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bryant v. Smith, No. CA-92-2159 (D. Md. Dec. 16, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F.3d 1065, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21799, 1995 WL 347237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-bryant-v-william-smith-warden-james-murphy-ca4-1995.