Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Larry Mosley v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Larry D. Mosley on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated May 23, 2011. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6927

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Larry D. Mosley on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated May 23, 2011. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Larry Mosley v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Larry D. Mosley on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated May 23, 2011. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6927

    LARRY D. MOSLEY,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia Department of
    Corrections; WALRATH, Mr., Unit Manager; MS. MASSENBURG,
    Grievance Coordinator; S. HATCH, Ms., Fiscal Technician
    (Business Office); MS. ROLLINS, Operations Manager (Claim
    # 2),
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    JOHN M. JABE, Deputy Director of Operations; JAMES R.
    CAMACHE, Deputy Director of Community Operations; DAVID
    ROBINSON, Regional Director, VDOC,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Liam OGrady, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-00992-LO-JFA)

    Submitted:

    March 15, 2012

    Decided:

    March 19, 2012

    Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry D. Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,


    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Larry

    D.

    Mosley

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    Mosley v. Johnson, No. 1:09-cv-00992-LO-JFA (E.D. Va.

    court.

    filed May 23, 2011 and entered May 25, 2011).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like