Raymond Riddick Oliver v. Robert R. Kelly, Warden Deerfield Corr. Ctr. James A. Smith, Jr. Reg'l Adm'r (E. Region), 900 F.2d 254 (4th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Raymond Riddick Oliver v. Robert R. Kelly, Warden Deerfield Corr. Ctr. James A. Smith, Jr. Reg'l Adm'r (E. Region), 900 F.2d 254 (4th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond Riddick Oliver
v.
Robert R. Kelly, Warden Deerfield Correctional Center James A. Smith, Jr. Regional Administrator (Eastern Region)
89-6865.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 14, 1990.
900 F.2d 254
Unpublished

900 F.2d 254
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Raymond Riddick OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert R. KELLY, Warden; Deerfield Correctional Center;
James A. Smith, Jr.; Regional Administrator
(Eastern Region), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-6865.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 1990.
Decided March 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 88-757-AM).

Raymond Riddick Oliver, appellant pro se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Raymond Riddick Oliver 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Kelly, C/A No. 88-757-AM (E.D.Va. Sept. 25, 1989). 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