Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    William Quesenberry v. Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, 809 F.2d 785, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Quesenberry filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the wardens of two correctional centers. The district court denied relief and Quesenberry appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision without oral argument, finding the appeal was without merit based on issues recently decided by authoritative courts. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Quesenberry's claims.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    William Quesenberry v. Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, 809 F.2d 785, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views1 page
    William Quesenberry filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the wardens of two correctional centers. The district court denied relief and Quesenberry appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision without oral argument, finding the appeal was without merit based on issues recently decided by authoritative courts. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Quesenberry's claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-01-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 809 F.2d 785 Docket: 86-7322

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Quesenberry filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the wardens of two correctional centers. The district court denied relief and Quesenberry appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision without oral argument, finding the appeal was without merit based on issues recently decided by authoritative courts. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Quesenberry's claims.

    Copyright:

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

    William Quesenberry v. Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, 809 F.2d 785, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Quesenberry filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the wardens of two correctional centers. The district court denied relief and Quesenberry appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision without oral argument, finding the appeal was without merit based on issues recently decided by authoritative courts. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Quesenberry's claims.

    Copyright:

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

    809 F.

    2d 785
    Unpublished Disposition

    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 QUESENBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, MECKLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Warden, Powhatan
    Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 86-7322.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Nov. 24, 1986.
    Decided Jan. 8, 1987.

    Before RUSSELL, PHILLIPS and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    William Quesenberry, appellant pro se.
    William W. Muse, Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
    PER CURIAM:

    A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal
    from its order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 is without merit.
    Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we
    dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of
    the district court. Quesenberry v. Warden, C/A No. 85-0808-AM (E.D.Va.,
    Oct. 1, 1986).

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like