Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6224 JEFFREY DAVID BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD ANGELONE, Director, VA Department of Corrections; LISA EDWARDS; LEE SULLIVAN, Safety Specialist, Dillwyn Correc- tional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-918-7
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6224 JEFFREY DAVID BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD ANGELONE, Director, VA Department of Corrections; LISA EDWARDS; LEE SULLIVAN, Safety Specialist, Dillwyn Correc- tional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-918-7)..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6224 JEFFREY DAVID BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Virginia Department of Corrections; RONALD ANGELONE, Director, VA Department of Corrections; LISA EDWARDS; LEE SULLIVAN, Safety Specialist, Dillwyn Correc- tional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-918-7) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey David Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey David Barnes appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and denying his motion for summary judgment. 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 Barnes v Virginia, No. CA-99-918-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2000). 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