Filed: Oct. 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6905 LARRY DARNELL COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. UZMA ALI, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00255-gec-mfu) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Darnell Coleman, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6905 LARRY DARNELL COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. UZMA ALI, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00255-gec-mfu) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Darnell Coleman, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6905
LARRY DARNELL COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. UZMA ALI,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00255-gec-mfu)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Darnell Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry D. Coleman, a state prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing 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. Coleman v. Ali, No. 7:10-cv-00255-gec-mfu (W.D.
Va. June 25, 2010). 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