John H. Mudd, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James E. Johnson; William P. Rogers, Defendants-appellees.darnell Jones, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James E. Johnson; William P. Rogers, Defendants-appellees, 879 F.2d 863 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseJohn H. Mudd, appellant pro se.
Darnell Jones, appellant pro se.
Mark Ralph Davis (Office of the Attorney General of Virginia), for appellees.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John H. Mudd and Darnell Jones appeal from the district court's orders denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Our review of the records and the district court's opinions disclose that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mudd v. Johnson, C/A No. 88-73-L (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1989); Jones v. Johnson, C/A No. 88-77-L (W.D. Va., Feb. 16, 1989). 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.
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.
