Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Yiaadey v. Burgess, 95-2588 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2588 Visitors: 39
Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2588 JOHN ARTHUR YIAADEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUDLEY BURGESS, individually, and as Admin- istrator of the Southern Regional Jail in Beaver, WV; JACK ROOP, Individually and as Director of the Regional Jail Authority for West Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-274)
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2588 JOHN ARTHUR YIAADEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUDLEY BURGESS, individually, and as Admin- istrator of the Southern Regional Jail in Beaver, WV; JACK ROOP, Individually and as Director of the Regional Jail Authority for West Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-274) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Arthur Yiaadey, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assis- tant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yiaadey v. Burgess, No. CA-95-274 (S.D.W. Va. July 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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