62 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1995), 94-7327, Kochi v. Johnson

Docket Nº:94-7327.
Citation:62 F.3d 1414
Party Name:Armand KOCHI, a/k/a Atmond Koci, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.D. JOHNSON, Major; John Russell, Adjustment Committee Chairman; Ben Ferguson, Captain; J.W. Armentrout, Assistant Warden; Sarah Chaffon, Therapist, Defendants-Appellees,and Bernard KASINOFF, Doctor, Defendant.
Case Date:August 09, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1414

62 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1995)

Armand KOCHI, a/k/a Atmond Koci, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

G.D. JOHNSON, Major; John Russell, Adjustment Committee Chairman; Ben Ferguson, Captain; J.W. Armentrout, Assistant Warden; Sarah Chaffon, Therapist, Defendants-Appellees,and

Bernard KASINOFF, Doctor, Defendant.

No. 94-7327.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

August 9, 1995

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted Jan. 31, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-962)

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Armand Kochi, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. [*] Kochi v. Johnson, No. CA-93-962 (W.D.Va. Oct. 26, 1994). 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


Notes:

[*] We need not determine whether the terms of the Virginia prison regulations governing segregation and wing restriction invoke a protected liberty interest cognizable under the Due Process Clause because the record clearly reflects that Appellant was given all the process he was due pursuant to Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983), with regard to the disciplinary hearings of which he complains and the punishments imposed upon him at those hearings. In addition, Appellant's conclusory claim that Defendant Ferguson imposed wing restriction upon him in violation of due process cannot withstand Defendants' sworn affidavits and materials filed in support of their summary...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP