Filed: May 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6116 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-1194-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6116 ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-1194-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6116
ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RON ANGELONE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-95-1194-2)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying re-
lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59 motion. Both orders are properly before the court.
Dove v. CODESCO,
569 F.2d 807, 810 (4th Cir. 1978). We have re-
viewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Brock v. Angelone, No. CA-95-1194-2 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 28, 1995; Jan. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument be-
cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2