Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Furlough v. Garraghty, 99-6562 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6562 Visitors: 25
Filed: Feb. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6562 JAMIE RAY FURLOUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; G. P. WILLIAMS, Associate Warden; MS. MILLARD, Associate Warden; P. A. EDGE, Warden’s Designee; D. TRENT, Lieutenant, Housing Unit Manager; MS. BIGGS; M. MCKRINS- TRY, Law Library Supervisor; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and L. ADAMS, Law Library Official; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants. App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6562 JAMIE RAY FURLOUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; G. P. WILLIAMS, Associate Warden; MS. MILLARD, Associate Warden; P. A. EDGE, Warden’s Designee; D. TRENT, Lieutenant, Housing Unit Manager; MS. BIGGS; M. MCKRINS- TRY, Law Library Supervisor; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and L. ADAMS, Law Library Official; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-322) Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2000 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Ray Furlough, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamie Ray Furlough 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’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Furlough v. Garraghty, No. CA-98-322 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 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