Filed: Oct. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7107 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE; SERGEANT COCUS; JANET SALYER; LIEUTENANT MAYBERRY; MR. SHAW; LIEUTENANT MCCLANAHAN; MS. LESTER; MR. HAMMOND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-505) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7107 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE; SERGEANT COCUS; JANET SALYER; LIEUTENANT MAYBERRY; MR. SHAW; LIEUTENANT MCCLANAHAN; MS. LESTER; MR. HAMMOND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-505) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7107 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE; SERGEANT COCUS; JANET SALYER; LIEUTENANT MAYBERRY; MR. SHAW; LIEUTENANT MCCLANAHAN; MS. LESTER; MR. HAMMOND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-505) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Lee, No. CA-99-505 (W.D. Va. Aug. 6, 1999). 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 2
