Joe Lee Fulgham, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Edward W. Murray, Director of System, Defendant-appellee, 993 F.2d 1536 (4th Cir. 1993)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-238-2)
Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.
E.D. Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Joe Lee Fulgham appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Fulgham v. Murray, No. CA-93-238-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1993). We deny Fulgham's motion for 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
We also note that because the core of Fulgham's complaint sought his release from confinement, it could have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983)
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.
