Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sharrieff v. Parker, 95-6794 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6794 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6794 OORELL SHARRIEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN PARKER, Unknown; EARL P. HICKS; LIEU- TENANT AKERS, Unknown; LIEUTENANT HARRISTON, Unknown; SERGEANT IRVING, Unknown; T. JONES, Correctional Officer; DARIN CUNNINGHAM, Cor- rectional Officer; BOONE, Correctional Offi- cer, Unknown; R. SKYES, Correctional Officer; HUNTER, Correctional Officer, Unknown, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6794 OORELL SHARRIEFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN PARKER, Unknown; EARL P. HICKS; LIEU- TENANT AKERS, Unknown; LIEUTENANT HARRISTON, Unknown; SERGEANT IRVING, Unknown; T. JONES, Correctional Officer; DARIN CUNNINGHAM, Cor- rectional Officer; BOONE, Correctional Offi- cer, Unknown; R. SKYES, Correctional Officer; HUNTER, Correctional Officer, Unknown, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-105) Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oorell Sharrieff, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order entering judgment on the jury's verdict finding in favor of Appellees.* We have reviewed the record before us and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge's order. 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 parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c)(1) (1988). 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