Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sawyer v. Angelone, 96-6445 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6445 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6445 RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE; COLIN ANGLICKER; LIEUTENANT JOHNSON; CAPTAIN FERGUSON; LIEUTENANT HALL; CAPTAIN HALL; BOB STAMPER; HERMAN L. WYNN; ISA OHARA; CORRECTIONAL CONNER; OFFICER THOMAS; OFFICER SLATE; CAPTAIN DAY; LIEUTENANT SPROUSE; L. SAUNDERS; SERGEANT BRAXTON; SER- GEANT WINDELL; SERGEANT STONE; OFFICER HAHN; OFFICER CARTER; OFFICER RINGOLD; OFFICER SPROUSE; H. D. GOULDIN;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6445 RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE; COLIN ANGLICKER; LIEUTENANT JOHNSON; CAPTAIN FERGUSON; LIEUTENANT HALL; CAPTAIN HALL; BOB STAMPER; HERMAN L. WYNN; ISA OHARA; CORRECTIONAL CONNER; OFFICER THOMAS; OFFICER SLATE; CAPTAIN DAY; LIEUTENANT SPROUSE; L. SAUNDERS; SERGEANT BRAXTON; SER- GEANT WINDELL; SERGEANT STONE; OFFICER HAHN; OFFICER CARTER; OFFICER RINGOLD; OFFICER SPROUSE; H. D. GOULDIN; MAJOR BOYCE; CAPTAIN BRUCE; CAPTAIN R. STARKS; R. SMITH, Captain; OFFICER LIPSCONE; LIEUTENANT ROGERS; FRED GREENE; WAYNE KINCAID; OFFICER MCDUFFY; G. D. JOHNSON, Major, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1392-R) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jerry Sawyer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sawyer v. Angelone, No. CA-95-1392-R (W.D. VA. Feb. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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