Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Watts v. Metzger, 96-7491 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7491 Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7491 JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; RON ANGELONE; DOUGLAS E. WHALEY; D. OTTINGER; JOHN B. TAYLOR; FRED P. ROESSEL; SERGEANT TERRY; NURSE MONROE; LIEU- TENANT COTTRELL, a/k/a Lieutenant Contrell; SERGEANT CARTER, SR.; SERGEANT LESUER, a/k/a Sergeant LaSure, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE SCOTT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Vi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7491 JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; RON ANGELONE; DOUGLAS E. WHALEY; D. OTTINGER; JOHN B. TAYLOR; FRED P. ROESSEL; SERGEANT TERRY; NURSE MONROE; LIEU- TENANT COTTRELL, a/k/a Lieutenant Contrell; SERGEANT CARTER, SR.; SERGEANT LESUER, a/k/a Sergeant LaSure, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE SCOTT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-744-R) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: August 13, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Dudley Foster Woody, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia; Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defen- dants' motions to dismiss his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994). 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. Watts v. Metzger, No. CA-95-744-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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