Filed: Jun. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6319 ROBERT BYNUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. W. BRADFORD, Sheriff; NORTHHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL; GLENDA GARVIS, R.N., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1932-AM) Submitted: May 9, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6319 ROBERT BYNUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. W. BRADFORD, Sheriff; NORTHHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL; GLENDA GARVIS, R.N., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1932-AM) Submitted: May 9, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6319 ROBERT BYNUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. W. BRADFORD, Sheriff; NORTHHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL; GLENDA GARVIS, R.N., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1932-AM) Submitted: May 9, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Bynum, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bynum v. Bradford, No. CA-01-1932-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 28, 2002, entered Jan. 30, 2002). 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. DISMISSED 2
