Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skundor v. McBride, 03-7585 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7585 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7585 DAVID SKUNDOR, and the class of similarly situated persons being all prisoners housed in the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his personal and official capacities; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his official capacity; ROBERT DANIEL, in his personal capacity, Defendan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7585 DAVID SKUNDOR, and the class of similarly situated persons being all prisoners housed in the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his personal and official capacities; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his official capacity; ROBERT DANIEL, in his personal capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-02-205-5) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Appellant Pro Se. Heather A. Connolly, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: David Skundor appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, and denying his motion to alter judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Skundor v. McBride, No. CA-02-205-5 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 9, 2003; Nov. 4, 2003). 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 - 3 -
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