Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Raynor v. Bunker, 00-6853 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6853 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6853 JAMES RAYNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BUNKER; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden; MAJOR ROWLETTE; CORRECTIONER OFFICER HAWKS, 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-99-667-7) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6853 JAMES RAYNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BUNKER; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden; MAJOR ROWLETTE; CORRECTIONER OFFICER HAWKS, 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-99-667-7) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. David Ernest Boelzner, Heather Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Vir- ginia; William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Vir- ginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Raynor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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 Raynor v. Bunker, No. CA-99-667-7 (W.D. Va. June 14, 2000). We further deny as moot Raynor’s motions for ap- pointment of counsel, for copies of documents, and for an eviden- tiary hearing. 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