Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6681 HUGO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; G. MORGAN, Assistant Warden; G. H. PUGH, Chief Case Worker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-132-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6681 HUGO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; G. MORGAN, Assistant Warden; G. H. PUGH, Chief Case Worker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-132-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6681 HUGO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; G. MORGAN, Assistant Warden; G. H. PUGH, Chief Case Worker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-132-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugo Escobar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hugo Escobar appeals the district court’s order denying 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. Escobar v. Garraghty, No. CA-02-132-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 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. AFFIRMED 2
