Filed: Aug. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1481 CHARLES WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia; POLICE DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-43-7) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1481 CHARLES WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia; POLICE DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-43-7) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1481 CHARLES WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia; POLICE DEPARTMENT, Bristol, Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-43-7) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Wilson 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 Wilson v. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-04-43-7 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 29, 2004 & entered Mar. 30, 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 - 2 -
