Winston v. Auton v. Ann Emery, Winston v. Auton v. Rickie Robinson, 82 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Winston v. Auton v. Ann Emery, Winston v. Auton v. Rickie Robinson, 82 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hall v. Saul (ncwd, 2021-08-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hall v. Saul (2×)
W.D.N.C. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cline v. Chater, 82 F.3d 409 , 409 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding no error when the ALJ did not include the claimants testified “inability to grip with his left hand,” noting the medical record held no reference to such physical problem).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Winston
v.
Auton v. Ann Emery, Winston v. Auton v. Rickie Robinson
96-6214.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 10, 1996.
82 F.3d 409
Unpublished

82 F.3d 409

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Winston V. AUTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ann EMERY, Defendant-Appellee.
Winston V. AUTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Rickie ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 95-7771, 96-6214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 21, 1996.
Decided April 10, 1996.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-900-5-CT-BO, CA-96-57)

Winston V. Auton, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Auton v. Emery, No. CA-95-900-5-CT-BO, and Auton v. Robinson, No. CA-96-57 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 1995 and Jan. 26, 1996). 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