Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6756 MICHAEL L. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CATHERINE WINGFIELD, Treatment Program Super- visor; NICLOE LINAMEN, Corrections Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-291-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6756 MICHAEL L. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CATHERINE WINGFIELD, Treatment Program Super- visor; NICLOE LINAMEN, Corrections Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-291-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6756 MICHAEL L. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CATHERINE WINGFIELD, Treatment Program Super- visor; NICLOE LINAMEN, Corrections Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-291-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael L. Evans, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Evans v. Wing- field, No. CA-00-291-7 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2