U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1992

Milton C. Williams v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman Edward W. Murray, Director David A. Garraghty, Warden Brenda Johnson, Counselor

Milton C. Williams v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman Edward W. Murray, Director David A. Garraghty, Warden Brenda Johnson, Counselor
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 24, 1992
976 F.2d 729; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24359; 1992 WL 235551 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Milton C. Williams v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman Edward W. Murray, Director David A. Garraghty, Warden Brenda Johnson, Counselor

Opinion

976 F.2d 729

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Milton C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman; Edward W. Murray,
Director; David A. Garraghty, Warden; Brenda
Johnson, Counselor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6735.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 1992
Decided: September 24, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-578-R)

Milton C. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Reneen Evat Hewlett, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Milton C. Williams appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988).* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Williams v. Jackson, No. CA-91-578-R (E.D. Va. June 16, 1992). 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

*

Both parties consented to the authority of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.