Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Buckley v. Womack, 99-7237 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7237 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7237 ELIJAH BUCKLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES WOMACK, Captain; BAKER, Deputy; B. JONES, Deputy; L. B. FOWKLER, Mrs., Defendants - Appellees, and RICHMOND CITY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1225-AM) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000 Before WILLIAMS
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7237 ELIJAH BUCKLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES WOMACK, Captain; BAKER, Deputy; B. JONES, Deputy; L. B. FOWKLER, Mrs., Defendants - Appellees, and RICHMOND CITY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1225-AM) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elijah Buckley, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Skora, SPOTTS, SMITH, FAIN & BUIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elijah Buckley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. 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 Buckley v. Womack, No. CA-98-1225-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 1999. Upon motion of Defendants Womack, Baker, Jones and Fowkler we grant leave to the district court to correct a clerical mistake under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). We deny Buckley’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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