Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2180 JOHN J. SWINT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-821-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2180 JOHN J. SWINT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-821-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2180 JOHN J. SWINT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-821-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Swint, Appellant Pro Se. Ted Myron Kanner, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Swint v. Clifford, No. CA-94-821-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 5, 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
