Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McBee v. Trent, 99-6558 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6558 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6558 RANDY MCBEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT; NICHOLAS J. HUN; WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES; ESSA ABDULLA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-697-2) Submitted: December 7, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6558 RANDY MCBEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT; NICHOLAS J. HUN; WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES; ESSA ABDULLA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-697-2) Submitted: December 7, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey K. Phillips, Jace H. Goins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia; Leslie K. Tyree, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randy McBee appeals the district court’s orders granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recom- mendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McBee v. Trent, No. CA- 97-697-2 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 28, 1998, & Mar. 25, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer