Theodore Harden v. Reg'l Adm'r S. Fielding, Officer T. Stewart John B. Taylor, 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Theodore Harden v. Reg'l Adm'r S. Fielding, Officer T. Stewart John B. Taylor, 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: White v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc. (scd, 1992-12-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" White v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
D.S.C. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Greene v. National Car Rental Sys., Inc., 977 F.2d 572 (Table) (4th Cir.1992) (applying Maryland law) (text available on Westlaw); Constantino v. Jaycor, 816 F.2d 671 (Table) (4th Cir.1987) (text available on Westlaw) (applying Virginia law).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mendible v. Special Proceeding Department of the Wake County Court
E.D.N.C. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Sept. 18, 2019) (“Jackson does not have standing to request relief on behalf of others.””) (citing Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 635-26 (4th Cir. 1981)); see also Hafner v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 977 F.2d 572 , 1992 WL 238252 , at *1 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 1992) (holding that, although the pro se plaintiff “filed pleadings purporting to represent a group,” he was “barred from representing anyone other than himself.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moore v. Slagle
W.D.N.C. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (the Fourth Circuit does not certify a class where a pro se litigant will act as the representative of that class); see also Hafner v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that, because plaintiff is pro se and is not an attorney, although he filed pleadings purporting to represent a group, he is “barred from representing anyone other than himself.”)(unpublished).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moore v. Slagle
W.D.N.C. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (the Fourth Circuit does not certify a class where a pro se litigant will act as the representative of that class); see also Hafner v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 977 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that, because plaintiff is pro se and is not an attorney, although he filed pleadings purporting to represent a group, he is “barred from representing anyone other than himself.”)(unpublished).
Theodore Harden
v.
Regional Adm'r S. Fielding, Officer T. Stewart John B. Taylor
92-6344.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 6, 1992.
977 F.2d 572
Unpublished

977 F.2d 572

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.
Theodore HARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REGIONAL ADM'R; S. Fielding, Officer; T. Stewart; John B.
Taylor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6344.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 1992
Decided: October 6, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-722-R)

Theodore Harden, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before HALL, SPROUSE, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Theodore Harden appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Harden v. Regional Administrator, No. CA-91-722-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 1992). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.[*] 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

*

We note that prison regulations created a liberty interest in the right to appeal prison disciplinary decisions, but that Harden had no liberty interest in receiving appeal forms absent a request for those forms. Accordingly, we find that prison officials' failure to provide Harden with such forms did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Olim v. Wakinekoma, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)