Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Braxton, 08-6117 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6117 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6117 CHAUNCEY A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden; OFFICER BURTON, Correctional Officer; OFFICER WHEELER, Sergeant; TINCHER, Sergeant; PRITT, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00292-SGW-MFU) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6117 CHAUNCEY A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden; OFFICER BURTON, Correctional Officer; OFFICER WHEELER, Sergeant; TINCHER, Sergeant; PRITT, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00292-SGW-MFU) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey A. Williams, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chauncey A. Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Williams v. Braxton, No. 7:07-cv-00292-SGW-MFU (W.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2007). We deny Williams’ motion for summary disposition and 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 -
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