# Robert Clayton Caudell v. Mental Health Board Judge Johnson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 15, 1990 · 907 F.2d 1137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/544389

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 15, 1990
- **Citations:** 907 F.2d 1137; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9718; 1990 WL 86015
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/544389

## Opinion text

907 F.2d 1137
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Clayton CAUDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH BOARD; Judge Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-6822.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 1990.
Decided June 15, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-299-N)
Robert Clayton Caudell, appellant pro se.
Steven Lieberman, City Attorney's Office, Portsmouth, Va., Caroline Lockerby, William H. Hauser, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellees.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Robert Clayton Caudell 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. Caudell v. Mental Health Board, CA-89-299-N (E.D.Va. Mar. 19, 1990). 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/544389. Public record. Not legal advice.