Earl Nash, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tom Ervin, Judge, Defendant-appellee.earl Nash, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James L. Mayfield, Administrator and Industrial Commissionof Ohio, Defendant- Appellee, 846 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseEarl Nash, appellant pro se.
Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Ervin.
Vinton DeVane Lide, United States Attorney, for appellee Mayfield.
Before DONALD RUSSELL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
A review of the records and the district court's opinions accepting the recommendations of the magistrate discloses that these appeals from its orders refusing relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 are without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgments below on the reasoning of the district court. Nash v. Ervin, C/A No. 87-2559; Nash v. Mayfield, C/A No. 87-2560 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
