Albert Russell Clay, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. W. D. Blankenship; P. L. Huffman; Sargeant Pain; Giviedocline; Will Mcgee; Linwood T. Wells, Jr.;patricia Clay; C. D. Larsen,defendants-appellees,anddvid Smith; Michael Rigsby; Walter Coffin; Doctor Danielspiers; Doctor Daniel E. Fisher; Allen J.gordon; Paul H. Ray; J. R. Exum,defendants, 4 F.3d 984 (4th Cir. 1993)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-90-754-A, CA-90-754-R)
Albert Russell Clay, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Kay Dillon, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
W.D. Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before WIDENER, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Albert Russell Clay, Jr., 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. Clay v. Blankenship, Nos. CA-90-754-A, CA-90-754-R (W.D. Va. April 2, 1992; May 7, 1992). In light of this disposition, we deny Clay's motion for bail pending appeal. 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.
