Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sizemore v. Holland, 98-6611 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6611 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6611 RAY DERWOOD SIZEMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MANFORD HOLLAND; ROY WHITE, Medical Admin- istrator; WEST VIRGINIA DIVISIONS OF COR- RECTIONS; RAYMOND SWACH, Director Parole Services; BRUCE CARTER; Chairman of the Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-879-2) Sub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6611 RAY DERWOOD SIZEMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MANFORD HOLLAND; ROY WHITE, Medical Admin- istrator; WEST VIRGINIA DIVISIONS OF COR- RECTIONS; RAYMOND SWACH, Director Parole Services; BRUCE CARTER; Chairman of the Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-879-2) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Derwood Sizemore, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Leslie K. Kiser, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charles- ton, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sizemore v. Holland, No. CA-97-879-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 1998). 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
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