Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6825 JOHN HENRY WEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENWOOD HILL; SERGEANT BETIS; CAPTAIN MELETIS; PRINCE WILLIAM ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-510-AM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6825 JOHN HENRY WEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENWOOD HILL; SERGEANT BETIS; CAPTAIN MELETIS; PRINCE WILLIAM ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-510-AM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6825 JOHN HENRY WEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENWOOD HILL; SERGEANT BETIS; CAPTAIN MELETIS; PRINCE WILLIAM ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-510-AM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry West, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint as frivolous. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. West v. Hill, No. CA-96-510-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1996). 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
