Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6305 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAMUEL G. WILSON, United States District Judge; JON R. BOLYARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-86-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6305 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAMUEL G. WILSON, United States District Judge; JON R. BOLYARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-86-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6305 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAMUEL G. WILSON, United States District Judge; JON R. BOLYARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-86-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Wilson, No. CA- 97-86-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 6 & 25, 1997). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
