Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Grimes v. Fowler, 04-6209 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6209 Visitors: 50
Filed: Jul. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6209 TIMOTHY GRIMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. FOWLER; G. JOHNSON; W. P. TRUE; JOHN DOES, Officials of ROSP; CAPTAIN HOCKETT; W. SMITH; M. BUCHANAN; J. BENTLEY; JOHN DOES, Officials of WRSP; JOHN DOES, Practitioners ROSP; JEAN DOES, Red Onion State Prison; SERGEANT HEAD; PRISON GUARD BOWEN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OWENS, Defendants - Appellees, and T. JOHNSON; A. BAKER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6209 TIMOTHY GRIMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. FOWLER; G. JOHNSON; W. P. TRUE; JOHN DOES, Officials of ROSP; CAPTAIN HOCKETT; W. SMITH; M. BUCHANAN; J. BENTLEY; JOHN DOES, Officials of WRSP; JOHN DOES, Practitioners ROSP; JEAN DOES, Red Onion State Prison; SERGEANT HEAD; PRISON GUARD BOWEN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OWENS, Defendants - Appellees, and T. JOHNSON; A. BAKER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge and Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-01-526-2) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Gary Clay Hancock, Timothy Edmond Kirtner, GILMER, SADLER, INGRAM, SUTHERLAND & HUTTON, Pulaski, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Grimes appeals the district court’s order granting judgment in favor of the Appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action in accordance with a jury verdict. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Grimes v. Fowler, No. CA- 01-526-2 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2004). 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