Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Young v. Rogers, 95-6719 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6719 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6719 HERMAN D. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. JARVIS, Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; C. LEWIS, Major, Chief of Security, Powhatan Correctional Center; LIEU- TENANT J. R. TOWNSEND; S. MORTON, Sergeant; W. T. COUTO, C/O; SUTTON, C/O; CHAVIOUS, C/O; PENNINGTON, C/O, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Unite
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6719 HERMAN D. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. JARVIS, Assistant Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; C. LEWIS, Major, Chief of Security, Powhatan Correctional Center; LIEU- TENANT J. R. TOWNSEND; S. MORTON, Sergeant; W. T. COUTO, C/O; SUTTON, C/O; CHAVIOUS, C/O; PENNINGTON, C/O, 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-94-779-CV-3) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman D. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) 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. Young v. Rogers, No. CA-94-779-CV-3 (E.D. Va. May 3, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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