Filed: Sep. 08, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6980 WALTER STEVE WILSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUG WEBERLING; BILL PRICE; ZAK LEE; JIM WORLEY; CHRISTEN W. BURHOLDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00228-JLK) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6980 WALTER STEVE WILSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUG WEBERLING; BILL PRICE; ZAK LEE; JIM WORLEY; CHRISTEN W. BURHOLDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00228-JLK) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6980 WALTER STEVE WILSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUG WEBERLING; BILL PRICE; ZAK LEE; JIM WORLEY; CHRISTEN W. BURHOLDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00228-JLK) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Steve Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Steve Wilson, Jr., 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. Weberling, No. 7:06-cv-00228-JLK (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2006). 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 -
