Filed: Dec. 02, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7345 GRANT EUGENE ERICKSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANGIE BOOTH; DEBRA COTTRELL; TERESA WADE; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00104-REM-DJJ) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7345 GRANT EUGENE ERICKSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANGIE BOOTH; DEBRA COTTRELL; TERESA WADE; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00104-REM-DJJ) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7345 GRANT EUGENE ERICKSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANGIE BOOTH; DEBRA COTTRELL; TERESA WADE; JIM RUBENSTEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00104-REM-DJJ) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grant Eugene Ericksen, Appellant Pro Se. John Herbert Boothroyd, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Grant Eugene Ericksen appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ericksen v. Booth, No. 2:08-cv-00104-REM-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. July 7, 2009). 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
