Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Johnson v. Bailey, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Zane A. Johnson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2010 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Johnson v. Bailey, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Zane A. Johnson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2010 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6352

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Zane A. Johnson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2010 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views3 pages

    Johnson v. Bailey, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Zane A. Johnson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its February 24, 2010 order. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6352

    ZANE A. JOHNSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    STEVE BAILEY, Western Region Director of N.C. Dept of
    Corrections; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Director, Division of Prisons;
    KEITH
    WHITENER,
    Administrator,
    Alexander
    Correctional
    Institution; CARLOS HERNANDEZ, Assistant Superintendent,
    Alexander Correctional Institution; MATT CLARK, Unit Manager
    on Segregation, Alexander Correctional Institution; R.
    TOWNSEND, Assistant Unit Manager on Segregation, Alexander
    Correctional Institution; FNU HAMES, Sgt.; FNU BLACKBURN,
    Lt.,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00016-GCM)

    Submitted:

    June 17, 2010

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    KING,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Zane A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

    and

    June 28, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Zane

    A.

    Johnson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    Johnson v. Bailey, No. 5:10-cv-00016-GCM (W.D.N.C. Feb.

    court.

    24, 2010).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like