Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6910 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M.E. GILLUHUGH; BRUCE DINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-363-R) Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6910 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M.E. GILLUHUGH; BRUCE DINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-363-R) Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6910 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M.E. GILLUHUGH; BRUCE DINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-363-R) Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kendrick v. Gilluhugh, No. CA-97-363-R (W.D. Va. June 20, 1997). 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
