Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6860 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LISA EDWARD; LIEUTENANT ADCOCK; GENE JOHNSON; JAMES E. BRIGG; W. HUFFMAN; GOODWIN, CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-441-AM) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6860 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LISA EDWARD; LIEUTENANT ADCOCK; GENE JOHNSON; JAMES E. BRIGG; W. HUFFMAN; GOODWIN, CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-441-AM) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6860 WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LISA EDWARD; LIEUTENANT ADCOCK; GENE JOHNSON; JAMES E. BRIGG; W. HUFFMAN; GOODWIN, CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-441-AM) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Irvin Marable, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Irvin Marable, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Marable v. Edward, No. CA-01- 441-AM (E.D. Va. May 7, 2001). Marable’s motions for the appoint- ment of counsel and to file an amended complaint are denied. 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