Filed: Sep. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6455 GEORGE VIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. DAUGHTRY, Correctional Officer; P. HAR- RISON, Supervising Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-176-2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6455 GEORGE VIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. DAUGHTRY, Correctional Officer; P. HAR- RISON, Supervising Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-176-2)..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6455 GEORGE VIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. DAUGHTRY, Correctional Officer; P. HAR- RISON, Supervising Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-176-2) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Via, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: George Via appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Via v. Daughtry, No. CA-99-176-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 1999, & Mar. 14, 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