Filed: Mar. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7482 WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BRASWELL, Officer; TIMOTHY S. EVANS, Investigator; R. L. CHUPIK, Investigator; JONES, J-106; S. I. SQUYRES, Investigator; DAVID K. MAPP, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-652-3) Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: Ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7482 WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BRASWELL, Officer; TIMOTHY S. EVANS, Investigator; R. L. CHUPIK, Investigator; JONES, J-106; S. I. SQUYRES, Investigator; DAVID K. MAPP, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-652-3) Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: Mar..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7482 WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BRASWELL, Officer; TIMOTHY S. EVANS, Investigator; R. L. CHUPIK, Investigator; JONES, J-106; S. I. SQUYRES, Investigator; DAVID K. MAPP, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-652-3) Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Morris McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. McBride v. Braswell, No. CA-96-652-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 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
