Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Masters v. Davis, 98-7372 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7372 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7372 SHANNON J. MASTERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM K. DAVIS, Commissioner of Corrections; DUDLEY BURGESS, Administrator of the Southern Regional Jail; CECIL H. UNDERWOOD, Governor; STEVEN CANTERBURY, Director of Regional Jail and Correctional Facilities; WILLIAM DUNCEL, [sic] Deputy Commissioner of Corrections; JIMMY PLEAR, Chief of Operations Regional Jail Authority; DAN HUCK, Chief of Operations Regional Jail
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7372 SHANNON J. MASTERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM K. DAVIS, Commissioner of Corrections; DUDLEY BURGESS, Administrator of the Southern Regional Jail; CECIL H. UNDERWOOD, Governor; STEVEN CANTERBURY, Director of Regional Jail and Correctional Facilities; WILLIAM DUNCEL, [sic] Deputy Commissioner of Corrections; JIMMY PLEAR, Chief of Operations Regional Jail Authority; DAN HUCK, Chief of Operations Regional Jail Authority; DALE MANUEL, Chairman of the Legislatures Interim Committee on Regional Jails, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-98-624-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon J. Masters, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shannon J. Masters, a West Virginia inmate, appeals the dis- trict court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Masters v. Davis, No. CA-98- 624-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 2, 1998). We deny the motion to dismiss certain Appellees as parties 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. DISMISSED 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