Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7499 SAMUEL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. DAVIS, Warden; LORETTA HOUSE, L.P.N.; DR. SHELTON; J. G. BRUGES; J. D. NETHERLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-866) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7499 SAMUEL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. DAVIS, Warden; LORETTA HOUSE, L.P.N.; DR. SHELTON; J. G. BRUGES; J. D. NETHERLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-866) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7499 SAMUEL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. DAVIS, Warden; LORETTA HOUSE, L.P.N.; DR. SHELTON; J. G. BRUGES; J. D. NETHERLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-866) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Parker, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attor- ney General, Richmond, Virginia; David Ernest Boelzner, Michael Lawrence Goodman, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Parker v. Davis, No. CA-95-866 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 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 * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2