Filed: Apr. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7628 BARRY NEIL HOUCHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HUDDLESTON; GERALD K. WASHINGTON; SERGEANT CATRONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-246-7) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7628 BARRY NEIL HOUCHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HUDDLESTON; GERALD K. WASHINGTON; SERGEANT CATRONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-246-7) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7628 BARRY NEIL HOUCHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT HUDDLESTON; GERALD K. WASHINGTON; SERGEANT CATRONE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-246-7) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Neil Houchens, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Barry Neil Houchens appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Houchens v. Huddleston, No. CA- 05-246-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2005). 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 -
