Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Willie Johnson v. Edsel T. Taylor, Warden Sandra R. Barrett, SCDC Iac Coordinator Parker Evatt, Commissioner, 67 F.3d 295, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Willie Johnson filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-09-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 67 F.3d 295 Docket: 95-6289

    Original Title

    Willie Johnson v. Edsel T. Taylor, Warden Sandra R. Barrett, Scdc Iac Coordinator Parker Evatt, Commissioner, 67 F.3d 295, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Willie Johnson filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    14 views1 page

    Willie Johnson v. Edsel T. Taylor, Warden Sandra R. Barrett, SCDC Iac Coordinator Parker Evatt, Commissioner, 67 F.3d 295, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Willie Johnson filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials which was denied by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no errors in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning provided in the district court's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    67 F.

    3d 295

    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.
    Willie JOHNSON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
    v.
    Edsel T. TAYLOR, Warden; Sandra R. Barrett, SCDC IAC
    Coordinator; Parker Evatt, Commissioner,
    Defendants--Appellees.
    No. 95-6289.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Sept. 12, 1995.

    Willie Johnson, appellant pro se.


    Sandra J. Senn, Stuckey & Kobrovsky, Charleston, SC, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER, HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    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.
    Johnson v. Taylor, No. CA-94-311-2-O-BD (D.S.C. Jan. 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.

    You might also like