Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8523 WILLIE MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. R. NICHOLSON; G. K. AULT; LIEUTENANT FEURY, Defendants - Appellees, and SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JAIL PHYSICIAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-94-1430-AM) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8523 WILLIE MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. R. NICHOLSON; G. K. AULT; LIEUTENANT FEURY, Defendants - Appellees, and SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JAIL PHYSICIAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-94-1430-AM) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8523 WILLIE MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. R. NICHOLSON; G. K. AULT; LIEUTENANT FEURY, Defendants - Appellees, and SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JAIL PHYSICIAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-94-1430-AM) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. M. Adams, SPOTTS, SMITH, FAIN & RAWLS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Gary Albert Godard, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCray v. Nicholson, No. CA-94-1430-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 23 and Nov. 22, 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 3