William C. Lucion v. Doctor Berdeen Lieutenant Brooks Sheriff Hudson D.W. Barnes v. May Doctor Tien P. Hines, Lpn, and Medics R.K. Miller, Medic

Fourth Circuit

William C. Lucion v. Doctor Berdeen Lieutenant Brooks Sheriff Hudson D.W. Barnes v. May Doctor Tien P. Hines, Lpn, and Medics R.K. Miller, Medic

72 F.3d 127, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39576, 1995 WL 737426

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1995

Docket95-7105

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 127 (William C. Lucion v. Doctor Berdeen Lieutenant Brooks Sheriff Hudson D.W. Barnes v. May Doctor Tien P. Hines, Lpn, and Medics R.K. Miller, Medic) 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 C. Lucion v. Doctor Berdeen Lieutenant Brooks Sheriff Hudson D.W. Barnes v. May Doctor Tien P. Hines, Lpn, and Medics R.K. Miller, Medic, 72 F.3d 127, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39576, 1995 WL 737426 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

72 F.3d 127
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 C. LUCION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Doctor BERDEEN; Lieutenant Brooks; Sheriff Hudson; D.W.
Barnes; V. May; Doctor Tien; P. Hines, LPN,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Medics; R.K. Miller, Medic, Defendants.

No. 95-7105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

William C. Lucion, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Scott Blair, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Lucion v. Berdeen, No. CA-94-184-R (W.D.Va. June 15, 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.

*

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

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

72 F.3d 127
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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 C. LUCION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Doctor BERDEEN; Lieutenant Brooks; Sheriff Hudson; D.W.
Barnes; V. May; Doctor Tien; P. Hines, LPN,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Medics; R.K. Miller, Medic, Defendants.

No. 95-7105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

William C. Lucion, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Scott Blair, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Lucion v. Berdeen, No. CA-94-184-R (W.D.Va. June 15, 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.

*

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.3d 127, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39576, 1995 WL 737426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-c-lucion-v-doctor-berdeen-lieutenant-brook-ca4-1995.