Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skundor v. Painter, 02-7626 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7626 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7626 DAVID SKUNDOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER; RICK NOTTINGHAM, Captain, QII Unit Commander; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-463) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7626 DAVID SKUNDOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER; RICK NOTTINGHAM, Captain, QII Unit Commander; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-463) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Skundor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Skundor v. Painter, No. CA-00-463 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 26, 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