Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6642 DIVINE SCIENTIFIC ALLAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. HARDY, L.P.N. Nurse; J. RHODES, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-477-AM) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6642 DIVINE SCIENTIFIC ALLAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. HARDY, L.P.N. Nurse; J. RHODES, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-477-AM) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6642
DIVINE SCIENTIFIC ALLAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B. HARDY, L.P.N. Nurse; J. RHODES, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-97-477-AM)
Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Divine Scientific Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Carlyle Randolph
Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Divine Scientific Allah appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) com-
plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Allah v. Hardy, No. CA-97-
477-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 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
*
The order from which Allah appeals was filed on April 8,
1998, and entered on the district court’s docket on April 9, 1998,
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v.
Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2