Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kendrick v. Gilluhugh, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Richard Wade Kendrick, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A. Kendrick appealed the district court's decision. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Kendrick's appeal frivolous. The Fourth Circuit relied on the district court's reasoning in denying Kendrick's complaint and dispensed with oral argument, stating the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6910

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Wade Kendrick, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A. Kendrick appealed the district court's decision. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Kendrick's appeal frivolous. The Fourth Circuit relied on the district court's reasoning in denying Kendrick's complaint and dispensed with oral argument, stating the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Kendrick v. Gilluhugh, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Wade Kendrick, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials which was denied by the district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A. Kendrick appealed the district court's decision. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Kendrick's appeal frivolous. The Fourth Circuit relied on the district court's reasoning in denying Kendrick's complaint and dispensed with oral argument, stating the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6910

    RICHARD WADE KENDRICK,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    M.E. GILLUHUGH; BRUCE DINGER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-97-363-R)
    Submitted:

    November 18, 1997

    Decided:

    January 9, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's
    order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint under
    28 U.S.C.A. 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is
    frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Kendrick v. Gilluhugh, No. CA-97-363-R (W.D. Va. June 20,
    1997). 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