Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Crudup v. Sutton, 01-7721 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7721 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7721 SYLVESTER CRUDUP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. SUTTON, C/O, Personal Property Officer; M. BUCKLES, C/O, Personal Property Officer; S. HUGHES, Institution Ombudsman; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-363-2) Submitted: Februa
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7721 SYLVESTER CRUDUP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. SUTTON, C/O, Personal Property Officer; M. BUCKLES, C/O, Personal Property Officer; S. HUGHES, Institution Ombudsman; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-363-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Crudup, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sylvester Crudup appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Crudup v. Sutton, No. CA-00-363-2 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2000 & Sept. 6, 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 * Because Crudup fails to challenge in his informal brief the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on the denial of access to courts claim, this issue is not preserved for appeal. 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). 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