Filed: Feb. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7620 ROBERT E. SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROCKINGHAM COUNTY REGIONAL JAIL; REGIONAL JAIL CHIEF OFFICER; SHERIFF & ADMINISTRATION, 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-00-793-7) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7620 ROBERT E. SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROCKINGHAM COUNTY REGIONAL JAIL; REGIONAL JAIL CHIEF OFFICER; SHERIFF & ADMINISTRATION, 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-00-793-7) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7620 ROBERT E. SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROCKINGHAM COUNTY REGIONAL JAIL; REGIONAL JAIL CHIEF OFFICER; SHERIFF & ADMINISTRATION, 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-00-793-7) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Sampson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert E. Sampson 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. Sampson v. Rockingham Cnty Jail, No. CA-00- 793-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 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
