Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Carlos Arnaz Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Perry M. Johnson; Robert Brown, Jr.; Duane L. Waters; Rudy Sthalburg; William F. Grant; James Pogats; William Malone; Gene Borgert; Steven Kowalewicz, Sgt.; Dennis Andies; Dennis Hammond; Leo Coucu, Sgt.; Thomas Coucu; James Brown; Judy Parish; Frank Williams; Wayne Sheppard; Floyd Roberts, Lt.; Donald Mellendorf; Luella Burke; Robert Wright, Defendants-Appellees., 904 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1990)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (June 14, 1990)

Docket number: 89-1816
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37315743
Id. vLex: VLEX-37315743

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

Before KEITH and NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judges and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Carlos Arnaz Williams moves for counsel on appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants in this prisoner's civil rights case. 42 U.S.C. Sec . 1983 (1982). The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Williams is a prisoner in the Michigan prison system, and the defendants are various prison officials. William's complaint and supplemental complaint challenged the defendants' failure to provide him with his legal materials and with access to the prison law library during a two month period of time after a transfer from one prison to another.

A magistrate recommended that judgment be granted for the defendants because Williams was represented by counsel in his direct criminal appeal and because Williams had not shown prejudice to his pending civil litigation. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir.1985). After reviewing Williams's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate's report, entering judgment for the defendants.

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court properly granted judgment to the defendants. Accordingly, the motion for counsel is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the magistrate's report of March 20, 1989, and the district court's order of June 13, 1989. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Other documents:
Secs. 691 to 691g. Repealed. Pub. L. 99-371, title II, Sec. 210(d), formerly title IV, Sec. 410(a), Aug. 4, 1986, 100 Stat. 794; renumbered title II,... | 42 USC 1395 - Sec. 1395i. Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund | EDICTO del Ayuntamiento de Lladorre, sobre aprobacion de un plan urbanistico. | Posición Común (CE) nº 24/2006, de 18 de septiembre de 2006, aprobada por el Consejo de conformidad con el procedimiento establecido e... | Resolución nº 133/2007 de 4 de julio de la Directora General de Política Territorial para a... | CONCURSO Reapertura de la fase de licitación para la adjudicación de la revisión de planes de emergencia escolares Expte C.C.C C02/30/1996 . | Información pública de expediente de deslinde del monte de utilidad pública Basniada y Sierra Tocial en el término munici... | ANUNCI del Consell General d'Aran, sobre les bases especifiques que regiran els processos de seleccio de personal laboral (CLE01/05). | Edicto