TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rexford Garland Cassidy v. B.C. Counts, Captain, Thomas Israel, Warden, Kurt Fox, Doctor, Edward C. Morris, Edward W. Murray, Officer Alfred

Rexford Garland Cassidy v. B.C. Counts, Captain, Thomas Israel,, Kurt Fox, Doctor, Edward C. Morris, Edward W. Murray, Officer Alfred, 929 F.2d 691 (4th Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 22, 1991
Docket
No. 91-6508
Citations
929 F.2d 6911991 WL 371121991 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

929 F.2d 691 Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Rexford Garland CASSIDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.C. COUNTS, Captain, Thomas Israel, Warden, Kurt Fox, Doctor, Edward C. Morris, Edward W. Murray, Officer Alfred, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6508.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.

Decided March 22, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., District Judge. (CA-88-55-H)

Rexford Garland Cassidy, appellant pro se.

William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Sandra Morris Holleran, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Rexford Garland Cassidy appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cassidy v. Counts, CA-88-55-H (W.D.Va. Dec. 21, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Barger (Thelma), Estate of Barger (John B.) v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., Afl-Cio, Cfc, Local Union 26, 929 F.2d 691 (4th Cir. 1991) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list