Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Venable v. Jabe, 97-7595 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7595 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7595 JAMES EUGENE VENABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. M. JABE, Warden; J. A. SMITH, JR., Regional Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Deputy Warden; W. S. COPELAND; G. L. BASS, Deputy Warden, Defendants - Appellees, and MR. TILLERY, Counselor; DR. MARSHALL; MR. LORD; K. HAMLIN, Nurse, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7595 JAMES EUGENE VENABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. M. JABE, Warden; J. A. SMITH, JR., Regional Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Deputy Warden; W. S. COPELAND; G. L. BASS, Deputy Warden, Defendants - Appellees, and MR. TILLERY, Counselor; DR. MARSHALL; MR. LORD; K. HAMLIN, Nurse, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-841-3) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Eugene Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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. Venable v. Jabe, No. CA-95-841-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 1997). Appellant's motion for release to obtain surgery and motion for a court-ordered medical examination are denied. We also deny Appellant's motions to appoint counsel and 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
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