Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Young v. Rogers, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Herman D. Young under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. The district court denied relief to Young and he appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling based on the same reasoning. The appellate court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-6719

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Herman D. Young under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. The district court denied relief to Young and he appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling based on the same reasoning. The appellate court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    Young v. Rogers, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Herman D. Young under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. The district court denied relief to Young and he appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling based on the same reasoning. The appellate court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    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. 95-6719

    HERMAN D. YOUNG,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; D. R.
    GUILLORY,
    Warden,
    Powhatan
    Correctional
    Center; L. JARVIS, Assistant Warden, Powhatan
    Correctional Center; C. LEWIS, Major, Chief of
    Security, Powhatan Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT J. R. TOWNSEND; S. MORTON, Sergeant;
    W. T. COUTO, C/O; SUTTON, C/O; CHAVIOUS, C/O;
    PENNINGTON, C/O,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-94-779-CV-3)
    Submitted:

    December 14, 1995

    Decided:

    January 4, 1996

    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Herman D. Young, Appellant Pro Se.
    Susan Campbell Alexander,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 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. Young v. Rogers, No. CA-94-779-CV-3 (E.D. Va. May 3, 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