Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Spencer v. Easter, 02-7722 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7722 Visitors: 34
Filed: May 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7722 MICHEAL LEE SPENCER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELINDA EASTER, LPN/BCC Nurse; JULIA LAFOON, RN/BCC Nurse Supervisor; MS. ISRAEL, LPN/BCC Nurse; R. C. WALKER, BCC Institution Investigator; MRS. HARRIS, LPN/BCC Self- Medication Supervisor; S. MACLIN; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, BCC Nurse/Pill Call, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7722 MICHEAL LEE SPENCER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BELINDA EASTER, LPN/BCC Nurse; JULIA LAFOON, RN/BCC Nurse Supervisor; MS. ISRAEL, LPN/BCC Nurse; R. C. WALKER, BCC Institution Investigator; MRS. HARRIS, LPN/BCC Self- Medication Supervisor; S. MACLIN; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, BCC Nurse/Pill Call, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1579-AM) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Eugene Ornoff, ORNOFF & ARNOLD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Philip Carlton Hollowell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Spencer v. Easter, No. CA-01-1579-AM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 24, 2002 & entered Oct. 25, 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