Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Atkins v. Murphy, 95-6748 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6748 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6748 ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SANDRA MURPHY, Head Nurse, August Correctional Center; MARK NELSON, LPN, Augusta Correctional Center; JULIAN SNYDER, LPN, Augusta Correc- tional Center; R. SMILEY, Sergeant; EDWARD D. CAREY, Doctor, Augusta Correctional Center; T. REDMAN, Lieutenant, Augusta Correctional Center; J. H. LYLE, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6748 ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SANDRA MURPHY, Head Nurse, August Correctional Center; MARK NELSON, LPN, Augusta Correctional Center; JULIAN SNYDER, LPN, Augusta Correc- tional Center; R. SMILEY, Sergeant; EDWARD D. CAREY, Doctor, Augusta Correctional Center; T. REDMAN, Lieutenant, Augusta Correctional Center; J. H. LYLE, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-240-R) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Colin James Steuart Thomas, III, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from 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, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkins v. Murphy, No. CA-94-240-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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