Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Berry v. Kirby, 99-6964 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6964 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6964 JAMES WILLIAM BERRY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner of Corrections; HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correc- tional; JOHN & JANE DOE, unknown defendants, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-483-5) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 199
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6964 JAMES WILLIAM BERRY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner of Corrections; HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correc- tional; JOHN & JANE DOE, unknown defendants, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-483-5) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James William Berry, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James William Berry, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Berry v. Kirby, No. CA-99-483-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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