Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6446 TERRY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-728-3) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6446 TERRY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-728-3) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6446 TERRY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-728-3) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry L. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terry L. Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magis- trate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Tucker, No. CA-97-728-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
