Filed: Aug. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6402 ROBERT PHAROAH HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER T. LARGE; OFFICER J. GIBSON, Defendants - Appellees, and TRACY S. RAY, Chief Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00052-GEC-MFU) Submitted: July 18, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6402 ROBERT PHAROAH HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER T. LARGE; OFFICER J. GIBSON, Defendants - Appellees, and TRACY S. RAY, Chief Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00052-GEC-MFU) Submitted: July 18, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6402
ROBERT PHAROAH HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER T. LARGE; OFFICER J. GIBSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TRACY S. RAY, Chief Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00052-GEC-MFU)
Submitted: July 18, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Pharoah Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Pharoah Howard appeals the district court’s
judgment entered after a jury found in favor of Appellees and
denied relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record, conclude that the issues Howard raises do
not present substantial questions, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Howard’s motion for preparation of the
trial transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment
of the district court. 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