Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6898 MARVIN WALTER HASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FOX, Sergeant, employed at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail; SERGEANT LATHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-210-A) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6898 MARVIN WALTER HASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FOX, Sergeant, employed at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail; SERGEANT LATHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-210-A) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6898 MARVIN WALTER HASKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FOX, Sergeant, employed at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail; SERGEANT LATHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-210-A) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Walter Haskins, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin Walter Haskins appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. Haskins v. Fox, No. CA-00-210-A (E.D. Va. filed May 14, 2001; entered May 15, 2001). 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
