Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Allen v. Randolph, 01-1055 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1055 Visitors: 44
Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1055 WILLIAM F. ALLEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and RICHARD R. WILT, Party in Interest, versus JOEL RANDOLPH, and Family; EARL FRAZIER, and Family, Defendants - Appellees, and BECKY KEENER; TYRA DAVIS CLEVENGER; UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1-4)
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1055 WILLIAM F. ALLEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and RICHARD R. WILT, Party in Interest, versus JOEL RANDOLPH, and Family; EARL FRAZIER, and Family, Defendants - Appellees, and BECKY KEENER; TYRA DAVIS CLEVENGER; UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1-4) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joel Randolph, Appellee; Jerald Elton Jones, WEST & JONES, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William F. Allen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing several of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) claims as time-barred and granting the Appellees’ motion for judgment of acquittal on the remaining claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Randolph, No. CA-99-1-4 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 29, 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
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