Filed: Aug. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6361 CHARLES M. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden; JOANNE MCCARTHY; FRED SCHILLING, Health Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-36-2) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6361 CHARLES M. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden; JOANNE MCCARTHY; FRED SCHILLING, Health Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-36-2) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6361 CHARLES M. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden; JOANNE MCCARTHY; FRED SCHILLING, Health Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-36-2) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles M. Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles M. Moody 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 Moody v. Pearson, No. CA-01-36-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2001). Moody’s motions for production of documents and for a temporary restraining order are denied. 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. AFFIRMED 2
