Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gary Wall v. N. Stevens, 19-6484 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6484 Visitors: 43
Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6484 GARY WALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N. STEVENS, Correctional Officer of ROSP; A. VAUGHAN, Correctional Officer of ROSP; LT. C. GILBERT, Charlie Building Supervisor; SGT. J. HALL, Charlie Building Supervisor; L. MCCOWAN, Correctional Officer of ROSP; A. O’QUINN, Defendants – Appellees, and S. SHORTRIDGE, Operations Manager/“Active” PREA Manager of ROSP; BARKSDALE, Warden of ROSP, Defendants. Appeal from the United Stat
More
                                   UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 19-6484


GARY WALL,

                   Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

N. STEVENS, Correctional Officer of ROSP; A. VAUGHAN, Correctional Officer
of ROSP; LT. C. GILBERT, Charlie Building Supervisor; SGT. J. HALL, Charlie
Building Supervisor; L. MCCOWAN, Correctional Officer of ROSP; A. O’QUINN,

                   Defendants – Appellees,

             and

S. SHORTRIDGE, Operations Manager/“Active” PREA Manager of ROSP;
BARKSDALE, Warden of ROSP,

                   Defendants.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00373-JLK-PMS)


Submitted: August 20, 2019                                 Decided: August 23, 2019


Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Wall, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Gary Wall appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wall v. Stevens, No. 7:16-cv-00373-

JLK-PMS (W.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2019 & Apr. 11, 2019). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                AFFIRMED




                                             3

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