Filed: Aug. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6319 KIM D. PORTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS ALAN DOUBET, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-900-7) Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kim D. Porter, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6319 KIM D. PORTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS ALAN DOUBET, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-900-7) Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kim D. Porter, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6319 KIM D. PORTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS ALAN DOUBET, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-900-7) Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kim D. Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kim D. Porter appeals the district court’s order entering judgment for Defendant following trial in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
