Opinion

McCauley v. Jackson

  • 907 F.2d 1138
  • 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9871
  • 1990 WL 86366
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jun 19, 1990
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.8%

The opinion

907 F.2d 1138

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James M. McCAULEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

John Doe; Jane Doe, identifiable as, but not restricted to,

all other people similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman of the Virginia Parole

Board; Lewis W. Hurst, Vice Chairman of the Virginia Parole

Board; John D. Parker, Executive Director of the Virginia

Parole Board; John A. Brown, Member of the Virginia Parole

Board; George M. Hampton, Member of the Virginia Parole

Board; Gail Browne, Member of the Virginia Parole Board;

Virginia Department of Corrections; John Doe; Jane Doe,

as, but not restricted to, the interviews, designated to

conduct interviewers on behalf of the Virginia Parole Board,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-7299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 1990.

Decided June 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (C/A No. 90-122)

James M. McCauley, appellant pro se.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James M. McCauley 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. McCauley v. Jackson, C/A No. 90-122 (W.D.Va. Mar. 1, 1990). Because McCauley appears able to present his suit and it is not unusually complex, his motion to appoint counsel is denied. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.1984). 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.