Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rivens v. Dunn, 95-7778 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7778 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7778 MATTHEW RIVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY DUNN; T. W. LINDSEY; G. W. BUTT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7814 JOHN A. KOSMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY DUNN, Supervisor, Bland Correctional Center; T. W. LINDSEY, Bland Correctional Of- ficer; G. W. BUTT, Officer, Bland Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7778 MATTHEW RIVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY DUNN; T. W. LINDSEY; G. W. BUTT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7814 JOHN A. KOSMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JERRY DUNN, Supervisor, Bland Correctional Center; T. W. LINDSEY, Bland Correctional Of- ficer; G. W. BUTT, Officer, Bland Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-1102-R, CA-94-944-R) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Rivens, John A. Kosma, Appellants Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's orders denying re- lief on their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Rivens v. Dunn, No. CA-94-1102-R; Kosma v. Dunn, No. CA-94-944-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 31, 1995). 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 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