Williams v. Robinson, 39 F.3d 1180 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Williams v. Robinson, 39 F.3d 1180 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Floyd Glenn Williams
v.
Bishop L. Robinson Merry Coplin A. J. Carter Unknown Lieutenant, (Nate or Nathan) Unknown Female Member of Medical Staff A. Robinson Officer Ayers
94-6729.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 14, 1994.
Unpublished opinion
39 F.3d 1180
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38169
1994 WL 632441
Unpublished

39 F.3d 1180

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Floyd Glenn WILLIAMS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Bishop L. ROBINSON; Merry Coplin; A. J. Carter; Unknown
Lieutenant, (Nate or Nathan); Unknown Female
Member of Medical Staff; A. Robinson;
Officer Ayers, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-6729.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 1994.
Decided Nov. 14, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-93-3651-L).

Floyd Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[*~1180–1181]1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint and his motion for reconsideration of that order. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions disclose that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Robinson, No. CA-93-3651-L (D. Md. May 19 and June 1, 1994). 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.