# Sloan v. Hughes

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 25, 1995 · 56 F.3d 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/696744

## Case

- **Full name:** Ismail Sloan v. William Hughes Daniel T. Mahon Thomas F. Neumayer Larry W. Huffman Edward W. Murray Clarence L. Jackson, Jr. John A. Brown Jacqueline F. Fraser Gail Y. Browne Lewis W. Hurst
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 25, 1995
- **Citations:** 56 F.3d 62; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19128; 1995 WL 318452
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **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/696744

## Opinion text

56 F.3d 62
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ismail SLOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William HUGHES; Daniel T. Mahon; Thomas F. Neumayer;
Larry W. Huffman; Edward W. Murray; Clarence L. Jackson,
Jr.; John A. Brown; Jacqueline F. Fraser; Gail Y. Browne;
Lewis W. Hurst, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 95-6175.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 25, 1995.
Ismail Sloan, appellant pro se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sloan v. Hughes, No. CA-94-114 (W.D.Va. Jan. 17, 1995). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/696744. Public record. Not legal advice.