Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dixon v. Kirby, 02-7115 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7115 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7115 DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner; HOWARD H. PAINTER, Warden of Mt. Olive Correctional Complex; PATRICIA HANSHAW, Mount Olive Correctional Complex Mailroom Supervisor; PAUL RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of Corrections, Nominal Defendant, Defendants - Appellees. PAPER WINGS; ROSE COMICS (EROS); PRISON PASSION; CRUTCHFIELD; M & P SALES; MUSIC BY MAIL; TAPE KINGZ; BUD PLANT COMIC ART,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7115 DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner; HOWARD H. PAINTER, Warden of Mt. Olive Correctional Complex; PATRICIA HANSHAW, Mount Olive Correctional Complex Mailroom Supervisor; PAUL RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of Corrections, Nominal Defendant, Defendants - Appellees. PAPER WINGS; ROSE COMICS (EROS); PRISON PASSION; CRUTCHFIELD; M & P SALES; MUSIC BY MAIL; TAPE KINGZ; BUD PLANT COMIC ART, Parties in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-289-5) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lawrence Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Daynus Jividen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia; Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Lawrence Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dixon v. Kirby, No. CA-01-289-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 16, 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
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